Henry Litam vs.

Espiritu
GR No. L-7644 and GR No. L-7645, 27 November 1956
Submitted by: Richard Michael S. Recto (JD-4203)
FACTS:

This is an appeal from the CFI decision of Rizal on 24 April 1952 by Gregorio Dy Tam.

Petitioners Arguments Respondent’s Arguments

Tam filed a petition stating the following: Rivera filed a counter-petition stating the following:
1. Son of the late Rafael Litam. 1. She denied the alleged marriage between
2. Deceased was survived by 8 Children, him Litam and Khin as well as the filiation of the
included by a marriage celebrated in 1911 decendants in the petition.
with Sia Khin. 2. Asserted that the properties described are
3. After his death, Tam and his co-heirs came her paraphernal properties.
to know that the decedent had contracted 3. Respondent prayed that her nephew,
another marriage in the Philippines with Arminio Rivera be appointed as
Marcosa Rivera. administrator of the intestate of the
4. The decedent left as his property among deceased.
others ½ share in the purported conjugal
properties between him and Rivera.
5. The decedent left neither will nor debt.
6. Petitioner prayed that after the
proceedings, the letters of administration
be issued to Marcosa Rivera.
CFI Ruling:
 CFI granted Rivera’s petition and Arminio assumed as administrator of the estate.
 He submitted an inventory of the alleged estate of Litam and said inventory did not include the properties
mentioned in the Tam’s petition.
FOREGOING FACTS AFTER CFI RULING:
 Tam filed a motion for the removal of Arminio as administrator
 Meanwhile, Remedios Espiritu took was appointed as guardian of Marcosa who was declared sa
incompetent in 1952.
 Tam filed a case of the same court against Espiritu and Arminio Rivera. He reproduced substantially the
allegations made in his previous petition and also stated that the properties in dispute are conjugal and
are more than those specified in the inventory.
CFI Ruling:
 Dismissed the petition. Hence the appeal.
Issue:
1. WON the appellants are legitimate children of Rafael Litam.
2. WON Marcosa Rivera is the exclusive owner of the properties in question or do the same constitute as a
common property of her and the decedent.
Ruling.
1. NO. The SC held that the appellants failed to prove the alleged status as children of Rafael Litam by
Marriage with Sia Khin. The various official and public documents executed by Litam himself convincingly
shows that he had contracted any marriage other than Marcosa Rivera. Litam, in a sworn application,
declared that he had no child. Petitioners did not present in evidence the marriage certificate of Litam and
Khin which the Court’s opinion is the competent and best evidence of the alleged marriage.

2. YES. The SC held that it has been established that the properties in question were brought by Marcosa
Rivera with her separate and exclusive money. Great importance should be given to documentary
evident. Rafael Litam declared under oath that the money paid by Rivera for the properties were her
exclusive and separate money. He acknowledged that they had actually adopted a system of separation
of property.

The properties bought by Rivera is further strengthened by the fact that apart from a clearly disclosed
evidence that she was rich and Litam was poor when they got married. Moreover she has been
administering the properties in question to the exclusion of Rafael.

Further strong proofs that the properties in question are the paraphernal properties of Marcosa Rivea ,
are the very Torrens Title covering said properties. All the said properties are registered in the name
of Marcosa Rivera, married to Rafael Litam. This circumstance indicates that the properties in question
belong to the registered owner, Marcosa Rivera, as her paraphernal properties, for if they were conjugal,
the titles covering the same should have been issued in the names of Rafael Litam and Marcosa
Rivera. The words “married to Rafael Litam” written after the name of Marcosa Rivera, in each of the
titles are merely descriptive of the civil status of Marcosa Rivera, the registered owner of the
properties covered by the said titles.

The disputable presumption of law that the properties acquired during the marriage are conjugal
properties, upon which legal presumption said Plaintiffs and Petitioner mainly rely has been
decisively overcome by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence adduced in these cases that the
properties in question are the paraphernal properties of Marcosa Rivera.