Balcodero v.

CA Nature: This case involves the question of ownership over a piece of land acquired by a husband while living with a paramour and after having deserted his lawful wife and children. The property had been bought by the husband on installment basis prior to the effectivity of the Civil Code of 1950 but the final deed, as well as the questioned conveyance by him to his common law spouse, has ensued during the latter Code's regime. Now, of course, we have to likewise take note of the new Family Code which took effect on 03 August 1988. Facts: Alayo Bosing and Juliana Oday are spouses with three children but sometime in 1946, he left the conjugal home and started to live with Josefa Rivera with whom he begot one child named Josephine Bosing (now Balcodero - petitioner) During their cohabitation, Bosing purchased a parcel of land and indicated that his civil status as married to Josefa (the common law wife). In a letter, he authorized the real estate company (Magdalena Estate Inc.) to transfer the lot in the name of his "wife Josefa R. Bosing." The final deed of sale was executed by Magdalena Estate, Inc. A few days later, TCT was issued in the name of "Josefa R. Bosing, . . . married to Alayo Bosing, . . ." He even married said common law wife while his marriage with Oday was still subsisting. 3 years later, Alayo died, the legal wife and Josephine executed an extrajudicial partition on the lot bought that they allege was their conjugal property. A TCT was issued in favor of Josephine. Juliana (deceased Alayo's real widow) and her 3 legitimate children filed with the court a quo an action for reconveyance of the property. RTC ruled in their favor and it ordered that Josephine executed a deed of reconveyance of the property in question to the legal heirs of the deceased Alayo. CA affirmed. The common law wife here alleges that it was a conjugal property between her and Bosing. Issue: Whether the action for reconveyance of the property has prescribed - NO Whether the action for reconveyance is based on implied or constructive trust - YES Whether the property belongs to the petitioners - NO Held: Petition AFFIRMED The property remained as belonging to the conjugal property of Bosing and Oday since all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. The provisions under Article 147 or 148 shall apply as the case may be. It cannot be contended that, simply because the property was titled in the name of Josefa at Alayo's request, she should thereby be deemed to be its owner. The property unquestionably was acquired by Alayo. Alayo's letter merely authorized the company to have title to the property transferred to her name. More importantly, she implicitly recognized Alayo's ownership when after the death of Alayo, she and Josephine executed the deed of extrajudicial partition and sale in which she asserted a particular share. As regards the property relation between common-law spouses, the co-ownership rule had more than once been repudiated when either or both spouses suffered from an impediment to marry. The present provisions under Article 147 and Article 148 of the Family Code did not much deviate from the old rules; in any case, its provisions cannot apply to this case without interdicting prior vested rights (Article 256, Family Code). A constructive trust was deemed to have been created by operation of law at the time of Bosing's demise. As stated by Article 1456, if property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is by force of law considered to be a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. The period or prescription starts to run from the establishment of an implied trust. The applicable prescriptive period here, since it arises from law, is 10 years. It is counted from the time the transaction affecting the property is registered with the corresponding issuance of a new certificate of title. Here, only 6 years and 4 months have elapsed. The legal wife herein is not disqualified to the estate since there was no legal separation case instituted by the deceased despite her alleged marriage to another man. DISPOSITIVE: Decision appealed from in the instant petition for review on certiorari is AFFIRMED.