Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

FACTS:

Spouses Fernandez filed an action for ejectment against the Tumlos. Said spouses alleged that they are the absolute
owners of an apartment building located in Valenzuela, Metro Manila; that they allowed the Tumlos to occupy the
apartment building since 1989, without any payment of any rent. It was agreed that Guillerma Tumlos would pay
P1,600/mo while the other defendants promised to pay P1,000/mo for the rental, which was not fulfilled by the
Tumlos. When the Fernandez demanded the payment from the Tumlos of P84,000 from Toto and Gina Tumlos as
unpaid rentals for 7 years and P143,600.00 from Guillerma as unpaid rentals for 7 years, but said demand were
unheeded. Then they prayed that the Tumlos be ordered to vacate the property in question and to pay the stated
unpaid rentals, as well as to jointly pay P30,000 in attorney's fees.
Guillerma filed an answer to the complaint, claiming that she is also the co-owner and co-vendee of the apartment in
question together with Mario Fernandez, as evidenced by a Contract to Sell. MTC promulgated its decision in
January 1997.

Upon appeal to the RTC Guillerma et al alleged that Mario Fernandez and Guillerma had an amorous relationship,
and that they bought the property as their love nest; that they lived together in the property with their 2 children and
that Guillerma administered the property by collecting rentals, until she discovered that Mario deceived her as to the
annulment of his marriage.

RTC affirmed with the judgment of the MTC. CA reversed the RTC Decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not that petitioner is the co-owner of the apartment.

RULING:

No. SC rejected the claim that Guillerma and Mario were the co-owners of the disputed property.
Under Article 148, proof of actual contribution must be presented to be deemed as co-owner of the property
acquired during the cohabitation. In this case, Guillerma failed to present any evidence that she had made an actual
contribution to purchase the apartment building. She merely anchors her claim of co-ownership on her cohabitation
with Mario Fernandez. No other evidence was presented to validate such claim, except for the said affidavit/position
paper. Her claim of having administered the property during their cohabitation is unsubstantiated, for there is
nothing in the Article 148 of the FC provides that the administration of the property amounts to the contribution in
its acquisition.
Categories: Persons and Family Relations, Philippine Civil Code, Property Regime of Unions Without Marriage

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi