Upload
demos-rea
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Double Deal, Properties Acquired by Husband and Wife, Land Conjugal
1/2
Double dealA LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison(The Philippine
Star) |Updated February 27, 2013 - 12:00am
All properties acquired during the marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership unless the spouse claiming ownership thereof rebuts it with clear, categorical
and convincing evidence. This rule is illustrated in this case of the heirs of Rolly and Tina.
During their marriage, Rolly and Tina acquired a 144 sqm lot in their hometown on
which they built their conjugal home. The subject lot was covered by Tax Declaration (TD)
1151 issued in the name of Rolly.
When Tina died, Rolly and their two legitimate children Jun and Luz failed to partition
their hereditary shares in said property. Meantime, Rolly met and fell in love with Naty and
cohabited with her in the aforesaid conjugal house. During their cohabitation, Naty acquired
the lot adjacent to Rollys 144 sqm lot with an area of 192 sqm covered by the TD 02115.
Two days before he died, Rolly finally married Naty. But again his heirs Jun, Luz, and
second wife Naty also failed to partition among themselves their hereditary shares in hisestate particularly the lot covered by TD 1151.
Eight years later, Naty was able to consolidate Rollys 144 sqm property covered by
TD 1151 and the 192 sqm lot in her name so that the new TD (2038) under her name now
contained an area of 336 sqm TD 2038 had an annotation at the back stating: Revised as
per request of owner to include the excess area for taxation purposes.
After 11 years, Naty sold the 336 sqm property to spouses Lito and Ana.
Consequently TD 2038 was cancelled and TD 4946 was issued in the name of the spouses.
When the spouses Lito and Ana tried to get a Torrens Title over the 336 sqm
property, the children of Rolly, Jun and Luz opposed it. They also filed an action for recovery
of possession and ownership with damages against the spouses Lito and Ana and Naty.
The spouses Lito and Ana however claimed that the 336 sqm property was the
paraphernal property of Naty since Naty purchased it before she married Rolly. So Rolly was
not the owner of the property, and not being the owner, his heirs cannot inherit the same
from him. Besides, Lito and Ana argued that they were purchasers in good faith and for value
since the property was covered by a tax declaration in Natys name when they brought it
from her. Were the spouses correct?
No. The property subject matter of the contract of sale between them and Naty is
the 336 sqm land that includes not only the lot bought by Naty while she was not yet
married to Rolly but also the 144 sqm lot acquired by Rolly during his first marriage withTina. Hence, the subject 144 sqm portion sold by Naty to the spouses Lito and Ana is
presumed to be the conjugal property of Rolly and Tina.
The only basis of Natys ownership over the said 144 sqm portion is a tax declaration
that was belatedly revised and issued in her name upon her request after Rolly died. But the
revision of the tax declaration or the issuance of a new one in her name did not operate to
http://www.philstar.com/author/Jose%20C.%20Sison/A%20LAW%20EACH%20DAY%20%28KEEPS%20TROUBLE%20AWAY%29http://www.philstar.com/author/Jose%20C.%20Sison/A%20LAW%20EACH%20DAY%20%28KEEPS%20TROUBLE%20AWAY%29http://www.philstar.com/author/Jose%20C.%20Sison/A%20LAW%20EACH%20DAY%20%28KEEPS%20TROUBLE%20AWAY%297/30/2019 Double Deal, Properties Acquired by Husband and Wife, Land Conjugal
2/2
transfer title to subject property in her favor. So the said property remains part of the
conjugal property of Rolly and Tina.
When Tina died, her conjugal partnership with Rolly was terminated. Hence one half
of the 144 sqm property was automatically reserved in favor of Rolly. The other half share of
Tina was transmitted to Rolly and their two children Jun and Luz at 24 sqm each. Upon thedeath of Rolly, his rights over the property, consisting of 24 sqm inheritance from his late
first wife Tina and his 72 sqm share in the conjugal partnership with her, were transmitted to
his heirs, namely Jun, Luz and his second wife Naty who, as the surviving spouse was entitled
to the same share as that of the legitimate children or one-third each which is 32 sqm.
Considering that Naty owns only 32 sqm of the 144 sqm property and the remaining
102 sqm portion thereof is owned by the legitimate children of Rolly, Naty can only validly
sell the portion rightfully belonging to her. Hence the spouses Lito and Ana are only entitled
to 32 sqm of the 144 sqm lot. To effect physical division of the said property, a judicial or
extrajudicial partition is still necessary (Spouses Coja vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R.
151153, December 10, 2007).