Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R.No.150611.June10,2003.
* FIRSTDIVISION.
679
VOL.403,JUNE10,2003
679
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
The Law Firm of Andrew M. Magturoforpetitioner.
Public Attorneys Officeforrespondent.
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
The regime of limited coownership of property governing
the union of parties who are not legally capacitated to
marry each other, but who nonetheless live together as
husbandandwife,appliestopropertiesacquiredduringsaid
cohabitationinproportiontotheirrespectivecontributions.
Coownership will only be up to the extent of the proven
actualcontributionofmoney,propertyorindustry.Absent
proof of the extent thereof, their contributions
and
1
correspondingsharesshallbepresumedtobeequal.
_______________
1FamilyCode,Article148;Agapay
680
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
2
SeventeenyearoldGinaS.Reywasmarried, butseparated
de factofromherhusband,whenshemetpetitionerJacinto
3
Saguid in Marinduque, sometime in July 1987. After a
briefcourtship,thetwodecidedtocohabitashusbandand4
wife in a house built on a lot owned by Jacintos father.
Their cohabitation was not blessed with any children.
Jacinto made a living
as the patron of their fishing vessel
5
Saguid Brothers. Gina, on the other hand, worked as a
fishdealer,butdecidedtoworkasanentertainerinJapan
from 1992 to 1994 when her relationship with Jacintos
relatives turned sour. Her periodic absence, however, did
notebbawaytheconflictwithpetitionersrelatives.In1996,
the couple decided
to separate and end up their 9year
6
cohabitation.
OnJanuary9,1997,privaterespondentfiledacomplaint
for Partition and Recovery of Personal Property with
ReceivershipagainstthepetitionerwiththeRegionalTrial
Court of Boac, Marinduque. She alleged that from her
salary of $1,500.00 a month as entertainer in Japan, she
wasabletocontributeP70,000.00inthecompletionoftheir
unfinished house. Also, from her own earnings as an
entertainer and fish dealer, she was able to acquire and
accumulate appliances, pieces of furniture and household
effects, with a total value of P111,375.00. She prayed that
shebedeclaredthesoleownerofthesepersonalproperties
and that the amount of P70,000.00, representing her
contribution to the construction of their house, be
reimbursedtoher.
Private respondent testified that she deposited part of
her earnings in her
savings account with First Allied
7
DevelopmentBank. Her Pass Book shows that
as of May
8
23, 1995, she had a balance of P21,046.08. She further
statedthatshehadatotalof
_______________
Commentaries and Jurisprudence, 500 (1999 edition); Tumlos v.
Fernandez, G.R. No. 137650, 12 April 2000, 330 SCRA 718, 733734,
citing Agapay v. Palang, supra; Adriano v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil.
474,484485;326SCRA738(2000).
2
marriedattheageof15toEduardoV.SalazaronJune19,1985.
3Complaint,Records,p.7.
4Id.,atp.8.
5Answer,Records,p.21.
6Complaint,p.8.
7TSN,20January1998,pp.57.
8ExhibitK.
681
VOL.403,JUNE10,2003
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
681
Book.
11TSN,20January1998,pp.56and910.
12Records,p.19.
13Records,p.41.
14Records,p.46.
15Records,p.53.
16PennedbyJudgeRodolfoB.Dimaano.
682
682
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
SOORDERED.
TironaandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesEugenioS.Labitoriaand
EloyR.Bello,Jr.
683
VOL.403,JUNE10,2003
683
The issues for resolution are: (1) whether or not the trial
v. Court of Appeals,G.R.No.78051,8November1989,179
22April1991,196SCRA166,170.
23Junco
v. Court of Appeals,supra,note24at218.
684
684
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
24
litigantofaninjusticenotcommensuratewiththedegreeof
his thoughtlessness
in not complying with the procedure
27
prescribed.
In the instant case, the fact that petitioner was not
assistedbyalawyerisnotapersuasivereasontorelaxthe
applicationoftherules.ThereisnothingintheConstitution
whichmandatesthatapartyinanoncriminalproceeding
be represented by counsel and that the absence of such
representation amounts to a denial of due process. The
assistanceoflawyers,whiledesirable,isnotindispensable.
The legal profession is not engrafted in the due process
clause such that without the participation28of its members
thesafeguardisdeemedignoredorviolated.
However, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
effectivityofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,specifically,
Section6,Rule18thereof,renderedmootandacademicthe
issue of whether or not the plaintiff may be allowed to
presentevidenceex parteforfailureofthedefendanttofilea
pretrial brief. While the rules may indeed be applied
retroactively, the same is not called for in the case at bar.
Evenbeforethe1997RulesofCivilProceduretookeffecton
July1,1997,thefilingofapretrialbriefwasrequired
_______________
24Records,p.16.
25Id.,p.19.
26Records,pp.44,46and54.
27 Victory
1998,293SCRA378,384,citingPedrosa v. Hill,327Phil.153;257SCRA
373(1996).
28 Nera
SCRA1,6.
685
VOL.403,JUNE10,2003
685
onlythepropertiesacquiredbybothofthepartiesthroughtheiractual
joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by
themincommoninproportiontotheirrespectivecontributions.Inthe
686
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
bigamousmarriages,adulterousrelationships,relationships
inastateofconcubinage,relationshipswherebothmanand
womanaremarriedtootherpersons,andmultiplealliances
ofthesamemarriedman.Underthisregime,...onlythe
properties acquired by both of the parties through their
actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry
shall be owned by them in31common in proportion to their
respectivecontributions...
Proofofactualcontributionis
32
required.
Inthecaseatbar,althoughtheadulterouscohabitation
ofthepartiescommencedin1987,whichisbeforethedateof
theeffectivityoftheFamilyCodeonAugust3,1998,Article
148 thereof applies because this provision was intended
precisely
to fill up the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil
33
Code. BeforeArticle148oftheFamilyCodewasenacted,
there was no provision governing property relations of
coupleslivinginastateofadulteryorconcubinage.Hence,
even if the cohabitation or the acquisition of the property
occurred34before the Family Code took effect, Article 148
governs.
35
In the 36cases of Agapay v. Palang, and Tumlos v.
Fernandez which involved the issue of coownership of
properties acquired by the parties to a bigamous marriage
andanadulterousrelationship,respectively,weruledthat
proofofactualcontributionintheac
_______________
Whenonlyoneofthepartiestoavoidmarriageisingoodfaith,the
share of the party in bad faith in the coownership shall be forfeited in
favoroftheircommonchildren.Incaseofdefaultorofwaiverbyanyor
all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share
shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of
descendants,suchshareshallbelongtotheinnocentparty.Inallcases,
theforfeitureshalltakeplaceuponterminationofthecohabitation.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both
partiesareinbadfaith.
31 Cario
127,135.
32Agapay
33
v. Palang,supra,note1.
v. Fernandez,supra,citingtheFamilyCode,Article 256.
35Supra,note1.
36Supra,note1.
687
VOL.403,JUNE10,2003
687
_______________
37Supra,note1.
38 Heirs
SCRA 315 (1999), citing Pascua v. Florendo, 220 Phil. 588; 136 SCRA
208(1985);Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, G.R. No. L40098, 29 August 1975,
66SCRA425.
40 Id., citing P.T.
91622,6April1993,221SCRA19.
688
688
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
41
Azcuna, JJ.,concur.
_______________
41ExhibitsO,O1andO2.
689
VOL.403,JUNE10,2003
689