Agapay vs.

Agapay
287 SCRA 340

Topic:

Property Regime of Unions without marriage: Unions under FC 148

DOCTRINE:

Art. 148: only properties acquired by both through actual joint

contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in
common, in proportion to their respective contributions. If a party’s
contribution isn’t proven, there will be no co- ownership and no presumption
of equal shares.

FACTS:

Miguel Palang contracted his first marriage in 1949 with Carlina/Cornelia

Vallesterol. A few months later, Miguel left to work in Hawaii. In 1954, Miguel
returned for a vacation but never stayed with his wife and child. In 1957, Miguel
had attempted to divorce Carlina in Hawaii. When he returned to the Philippines
in 1972 for good, he refused to live with Carlina and his son.

In 1973, Miguel (63 years old) contracted a second marriage with Erlinda
Agapay (19 years old). Two months before said marriage, Miguel and Erlinda
jointly purchased a piece of agricultural land. In September 1975, a house and
lot was purchased by Erlinda allegedly as sole vendee.

In October 1975, Miguel and Carlina executed a Deed of Donation as a

form of compromise agreement to settle case previously filed by Carlina. In
said document, the parties agreed to donate their conjugal property to their
only child, Herminia. Miguel and Erlinda had a son, Kristopher, born 1977.
Erlinda and Miguel were convicted of concubinage in 1979.

In 1981, Miguel died, and Carlina and Herminia filed an action for
recovery of ownership and possession of riceland and house and lot that were
allegedly purchased by Miguel during his cohabitation with Erlinda. Erlinda
alleged that she had already donated her half of the riceland property to
Kristopher, and that the house and lot is her sole property having bought it
with her own money.

RTC ruled in favor of 2nd wife Erlinda. CA ruled in favor of 1st wife Carlina.

ISSUES:

WON the properties in dispute (“piece of agricultural land” and house and lot)
belong to the conjugal property of Miguel and Carlina (1st wife) and is therefore
subject to reconveyance?

RULING:

YES the properties in dispute belong to the conjugal property. CA decision

affirmed.

RATIO:

1. The deeds of sale of the properties should go to Carlina and Herminia.

Deeds of conveyance were valid. Applicable provision of law is Art. 148 of

the Family Code: property regime for when a man and a woman who aren’t
capacitated to marry cohabitate or live under a void marriage. Miguel and
Erlinda married in 1973, but their union was void because Miguel was still
married to Carlina.
 Art. 148: only properties acquired by both through actual joint
contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in
common, in proportion to their respective contributions. If a party’s
contribution isn’t proven, there will be no co- ownership and no presumption
of equal shares.

2. Erlinda tried to establish by her testimony that she is engaged in the business
of buy and sell and had a sari-sari store but failed to show that she actually
contributed money to buy the riceland. On the date of conveyance, she was
only around 20 years old and Miguel was already 64 and a pensioner of the
U.S. Government. It is unrealistic to conclude that she contributed P3,750.00
as her share in the purchase price of property. She now claims that the riceland
was bought 2 months. before they actually cohabited. She intended to exclude
their case from the operation of Article 148. No proof that the riceland was
purchased even before they started living together. Even assuming that the
property was bought before cohabitation, the rules of co-ownership would still
apply and proof of actual contribution would still be essential.

3. Erlinda allegedly bought it for PhP20,000, but the notary public testified that
Miguel provided the money and simply asked that Erlinda alone be placed as
vendee. This makes it a donation, which is void under Art. 739 of the Civil Code
since it was made by persons guilty of concubinage. Art. 87 also expressly
provides that donations between spouses now also applies to donations
between those who cohabitate as spouses.

Tumlos vs Fernandez
GR No. 137650, April 12, 2000

Topic:
Property Regime of Unions without marriage: Unions under FC 148

DOCTRINE:

Art. 148: only properties acquired by both through actual joint

contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in
common, in proportion to their respective contributions. If a party’s
contribution isn’t proven, there will be no co- ownership and no presumption
of equal shares.

FACTS:

Mario and Lourdes Fernandez were plaintiffs in an action for ejectment filed
against Guillerma, Gina and Toto Tumlos. In the complaint, spouses Fernandez
alleged that they are the absolute owners of an apartment building that through
their tolerance they allowed the Tumlos’ to occupy the apartment for the last 7
years without payment of any rent. It was agreed that Guillerma will pay 1,600
a month while the other defendants promised to pay 1,000 a month which was
not complied with. Demand was made several times for the defendants to
vacate the premises as they are in need of the property for the construction of
a new building.

Defendants appealed to RTC that Mario and Guillerma had an amorous

relationship and that they acquired the property in question as their love nest.
It was likewise alleged that they lived together in the said apartment building
with their 2 children for about 10 years and that Gullerma administered the
property by collecting rentals from the lessees until she discovered that Mario
deceived her as to the annulment of their marriage.

ISSUE:
WON Guillerma is a co-owner of the said apartment under Article 148.

RULING:

SC rejected the claim that Guillerma and Mario were co-owners of the subject
property. The claim was not satisfactorily proven by Guillerma since there were
no other evidence presented to validate it except for the said affidavit. Even if
the allegations of having cohabited with Mario and that she bore him two
children were true, the claim of co-ownership still cannot be accepted. Mario
is validly married with Lourdes hence Guillerma and Mario are not capacitated
to marry each other. The property relation governing their supposed
cohabitation is under Article 148 of the Family Code. Actual contribution is
required by the said provision in contrast to Art 147 which states that efforts in
the care and maintenance of the family and household are regarded as
contributions to the acquisitions of common property by one who has no salary,
income, work or industry. Such is not included in Art 148. If actual contribution
is not proven then there can be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal
shares.

Atienza v de Castro
G.R. No. 1695698, Nov. 29, 2006

Topic:

Property Regime of Unions without marriage: Unions under FC 148

DOCTRINE:
 Art. 148: only properties acquired by both through actual joint contribution
of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common, in
proportion to their respective contributions. If a party’s contribution isn’t
proven, there will be no co- ownership and no presumption of equal shares.

FACTS:

Lupo Atienza hired Yolanda De Castro as accountant for his two corporations
(Enrico Shipping Corporation and Eurasian Maritime Corporation) in 1983.

Then their relationship became intimate despite Lupo being a married man!
They lived together in the later part of 1983. They had 2 children, after the
second child they parted ways. Then Lupo filed a complaint against Yolanda
for a judicial partition of a land between them in the Bel-Air subdivision.

Lupo alleged that Yolanda bought the said property with his own funds. Yolanda
on the other hand said she bought it with her own funds.

Trial Court said that the contested property is owned common by him and
Yolanda and ordered the partition into two equal parts.

CA reversed the TC! Saying that it was the exclusive property of Yolanda.

ISSUE:

WON the disputed property is the exclusive property of Yolanda

RULING:

Yes. Since they are not capacitated to marry each other in their cohabitation,
FC 148 applies. Under this regime only the properties acquired by both of the
parties through their actual joint contribution shall be owned by them in
proportion to their contributions. Absent of proof of contribution, it shall be
presumed to be equal. He did not show any evidence that he contributed in the
parcel of land while the accountant showed bank accounts which apparently
shows that she was capacitated to buy the said land.

Evidence of De Castro was her job as accountant and businesswoman engaged

in foreign currency trading, money lending, and jewelry retail, promisorry notes
of dealings with clients, bank account statements, and business transactions
proves that she had financial capacity on the other hand Atienza merely
provided evidence that Yolanda had no such sufficient funds and didn‘t provide
for evidence regarding his own capacity to pay for such property.