Mallilin vs Castillo G.R. No.

136803 | Article 147 Property Regime of Unions without Marriage FACTS: Sometime in 1979, petitioner Eustaquio Mallilin, Jr. and respondent Ma. Elvira Castillo, both were married and with children, cohabitated even during the existence of their respective marriages. The Superfreight Customs Brokerage Corporation was put up by them during their union. The petitioner being the president and chairman of the board of directors while the respondent as vice-president and treasurer. Because of their brokerage business, they were able to buy personal properties, which they registered solely in respondents name. When the couple separated in 1992 due to irreconcilable differences, petitioner demanded from respondent his share in the subject properties, but respondent refused alleging that said properties had been registered solely in her name. That she exclusively owns the properties since she acquired them out of her own money. Respondent also denied that she lived with the petitioner as husband and wife because they in fact were legally married with their respective spouses. Petitioner filed a complaint for partition of co-ownership shares of their alleged properties. PETITIONERS CONTENTION: [1] That the properties were acquired by him and respondent during their union from profits derived from their brokerage business. [2] That said properties were solely registered in respondents name only because they agreed that arrangement, there was an implied trust in accordance with Art. 1452 and Art. 1453 of the Civil Code. RESPONDENTS CONTENTION: [1] That even if she and petitioner actually cohabitated, petitioner could not validly claim part of the properties because of Art. 144 of the Civil Code. [2] That petitioner cant be considered an unregistered co-owner of the properties, since titles to the land are solely in her name, to grant petitioners prayer would be to allow a collateral attack on the validity of titles. ISSUE: Whether or not the parties can be considered as co-owners of the properties, under the law, considering that they were both married and incapable of marrying each other, even assuming they lived together as husband and wife. HELD: Yes. They can be considered as co-owners of the properties and the court ruled that the trial court erred that if parties were incapacitated to marry each other, they could not own common properties. RATIO: Art. 144 of the Civil Code, which provides that the rules on co-ownership shall govern the properties acquired by a man and a woman living together as husband and wife but not married, or under a marriage which is void ab initio, applies only if the parties are not in any way incapacitated to contract marriage, was actually repealed by the Family Code under Article 148. And it provides that when a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. There was not a collateral attack on the validity of titles according to the court of appeal since petitioner sought to compel respondent to execute documents necessary to effect transfer of what he claimed was his share, petitioner in fact recognized their validity.

Art. 1452 of the Civil Code which provides that "If two or more persons agree to purchase property and by common consent the legal title is taken in the name of one of them for the benefit of all, a trust is created by force of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of each Art. 1453. When the property is conveyed to a person in reliance upon his declared intention to hold it for, or transfer it to another grantor, there is an implied trust in favor of the person whose benefit is contemplated. Co-ownership is a form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the other