Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse respondent appellate courts
decision[1] promulgated on October 7, 1991, affirming in toto the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court which ruled,[2]thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court renders judgment in favor of
the defendants and against the plaintiff, as follows:
1) Ordering the dismissal of the Complaint with costs against the plaintiff;
3) Sentencing the plaintiff to pay the defendants the sum of P10,000.00 as and for
attorneys fees.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner is the legal wife of private respondent Eusebio Francisco (Eusebio) by his second
marriage. Private respondents Conchita Evangelista, Araceli F. Marilla and Antonio Francisco
are children of Eusebio by his first marriage.
Petitioner alleges that since their marriage on February 10, 1962, she and Eusebio have
acquired the following: (1) a sari-sari store, a residential house and lot, and an apartment house,
all situated at Col. S. Cruz St., Barangay Balite, Rodriguez (formerly Montalban), Rizal, and; (2)
a house and lot at Barrio San Isidro, Rodriguez, Rizal. Petitioner further avers that these
properties were administered by Eusebio until he was invalidated on account of tuberculosis,
heart disease and cancer, thereby, rendering him unfit to administer them. Petitioner also claims
that private respondents succeeded in convincing their father to sign a general power of attorney
which authorized Conchita Evangelista to administer the house and lot together with the
apartments situated in Rodriguez, Rizal.
On August 31, 1988, petitioner filed a suit for damages and for annulment of said general
power of attorney, and thereby enjoining its enforcement. Petitioner also sought to be declared as
the administratrix of the properties in dispute. In due course, the trial court rendered judgment in
favor of private respondents. It held that the petitioner failed to adduce proof that said properties
were acquired during the existence of the second conjugal partnership, or that they pertained
exclusively to the petitioner. Hence, the court ruled that those properties belong exclusively to
Eusebio, and that he has the capacity to administer them.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. Hence, this
petition.
Petitioner raised the following errors allegedly committed by the appellate court:
[1]
Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) Jose A.R. Melo and
concurred in by JJ. Regina G. Ordonez-Benitez and Felimon H. Mendoza.
[2]
RTC Decision, p. 6; CA Rollo.
[3]
Petition, pp. 9-10; Rollo, pp. 15-16.
[4]
Reply, p. 1; Rollo, p. 61.
[5]
Art. 158. Improvements, whether for utility or adornment, made on the separate property of the spouses through
advancements from the partnership or through the industry of either the husband or the wife, belong to the conjugal
partnership.
Buildings constructed, at the expense of the partnership, during the marriage on land belonging to one of the
spouses, also pertain to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the
same.
[6]
Art. 160. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it
pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.
[7]
Art. 254. Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, and XV of Book I of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as
the Civil Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Articles 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41, and 42 of
Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended, and all laws,
decrees, executive orders, proclamations, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby
repealed.
[8]
Art. 256. This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired
rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.
[9]
Art. 105. In case the future spouses agree in the marriage settlements that the regime of conjugal partnership of
gains shall govern their property relations during marriage, the provisions in this Chapter shall be of supplementary
application.(n)
The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains already established between spouses
before the effectivity of this Code, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil
Code or other laws, as provided in Article 256.
[10]
Villones vs. Employees Compensation Commission, 92 SCRA 320 (1979) at p. 328 citing 82 Corpus Juris
Secundum 1010.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Jocson vs. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 333 (1989) at p. 344 citing Cobb-Perez vs. Lantin, 23 SCRA 637 (1968).
[13]
Ibid.
[14]
Cuenca vs. Cuenca, 168 SCRA 335 (1988) at p. 344 citing Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 153
SCRA 435 (1987); Magallon vs. Montejo, 146 SCRA 282 (1986); and Maramba vs. Lozano, 20 SCRA 474 (1967).
[15]
Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 1985, p. 427, citing Magnolia Pet. Co. vs. Crigler, (La. App.) 12
So. (2d) 511; Succession of Burke, 107 La. 82, 31 So. 391.
[16]
Art. 148. The following shall be the exclusive property of each spouse:
(1) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;
(2) That which each acquires, during the marriage, by lucrative title;
(3) That which is acquired by right of redemption or by exchange with other property belonging to only one
of the spouses;
(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of the husband.
[17]
Tolentino, supra at p. 395.
[18]
Tolentino, supra at p. 396.
[19]
Villanueva vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 192 SCRA 21 (1990) at p. 26.
[20]
CA Decision, p. 3; Rollo, p. 27.
[21]
Jocson vs. Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 345.
[22]
Ibid., citing Torela vs. Torela, 93 SCRA 391 (1979).
[23]
Ibid., citing Litam vs. Rivera, 100 Phil. 354 (1956); Stuart vs. Yatco, 4 SCRA 1143 (1962);
Magallon vs. Montejo, 146 SCRA 282 (1986).
[24]
Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 ed., p. 71.