Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Spouses JOSEPHINE
160762
MENDOZA GO & HENRY GO,
Petitioners,
G.R. No.
Present:
Panganib
an, CJ,
Chair
person,
YnaresSantiago,
- versus Martinez,
AustriaCallejo,
Sr., and
ChicoNazario, JJ
Promulgat
ed:
LEONARDO YAMANE,
Respondent.
May 3, 2006
x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----- -- -- -- x
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, CJ:
The Case
2002
Decision[2] and
the
September
17,
2003
for
its
annulment
or
cancellation,
the
RTC
the
Motion
for
1998.
had
been acquired
by
Muriel
using
her
Issues
II.
III.
due
course
to
respondents
lapsed
appeal;
Procedural Issue:
Whether Respondents Appeal
Should Be Given Due Course
eventually
filed
on May
28,
1998,
but
was
denied. Respondent
subsequently
filed a
Notice
of
prohibit
an
extension
to
file
motion
for
reconsideration.[14]
dilatory. The
Court
has
come
to
the
of
invokes
the conjugal
the
partnership,[22] the
presumption
must
first
party
who
prove
that
In
other
words,
the
presumption
in
favor
of
property
alleged
to
be conjugal
was
Eugene
Pucay
on February
27,
1967,[28] or
Petitioners
concede
that
the
property
was
Unilateral Declaration
the
nature
of a
property
--
Besides, the issue presented in Civil Case No. 505R was not the nature of the subject piece of land being
levied upon, but whether Atty. Guillermo de Guzman was
entitled to a charging lien. In that case, Muriel claimed
that she had not officially retained him as counsel, and
that no lawyer-client relationship had been established
between them.[33]
What was material was the time the fishpond lease right was
acquired by the grantee, and that was during the lawful
existence of Matildes marriage to Tiburcio.
x x x [T]his presumption is rebuttable, but only with
strong, clear and convincing evidence. The burden of
proving that the property belongs exclusively to the wife
rests upon the party asserting
Non-Redemption
After the Auction Sale
Likewise,
in
his
Opposition
(Answer)
to
the
Go. It
found
that,
under
Section
75
of
to
redeem
the
property. Misplaced
is
that
the
property
is
paraphernal,
the
were
acquired
during
the
marriage
of
and
Resolution AFFIRMED.
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Costs
against
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson, First
Division
WE
C O N C U R:
MINITA V. CHICO-
Associate Justice
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to
Section
13,
Article
VIII
of
the
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]