Ventura v. Spouses Paulino and Abuda

Facts:

• Socorro Torres was married to Esteban Abletes in 1980.
• The two did not have common children, but they had children from previous marriages.
  • Esteban had a daughter named Evangeline Abuda.
  • Socorro had a son who is the father of Edilberto Ventura, Jr., the petitioner in this case.
• Socorro had a subsisting marriage with Crispin Roxas during the time she contracted marriage with Esteban.
• Esteban’s first marriage, on the other hand, was dissolved because of the death of his previous spouse.
• Edilberto’s claims
  • Sometime in 1968, Esteban purchased a portion of the Vitas Property, located at Tondo, Manila.
  • The remaining portion was purchased by Evangeline Abuda on her father’s behalf in 1970.
    • Note: The Vitas property is covered by a TCT issued to “Esteban Abeletes, of legal age, Filipino, married to Socorro Torres.”
  • Starting 1978, Evangeline and Esteban operated small business establishments in the Delpan Property.
• In 1997, Esteban sold the Vitas and Delpan properties to Evangeline and her husband, Paulino Abuda.
  • It was Evangeline who continued to pay the amortizations.
• In 2000, the mother of Edilberto Jr., Leonora Urquila, discovered the sale.
  • She filed a petition for annulment of deeds of sale.
• Edilberto’s allegation
  • The signature on the Deed of Sale was forged.
  • Esteban’s actual contribution to the purchase of the Delpan property was not sufficiently proven since Evangeline shouldered some of the amortizations.
• Abuda’s allegation
  • Because Socorro’s marriage to Esteban is void, neither Socorro nor her heirs can claim any right or interest over the properties of Esteban.
• RTC ruled that the marriage between Socorro and Esteban was void from the beginning by virtue of Article 83 of the Civil Code.
• Edilberto offered the testimony of Socorro’s daughter-in-law Conchita Ventura.
  • Conchita claimed that Crispin, who was a seaman, had been missing and unheard from for 35 years.
• The TCT to the properties were issued during the marriage of Socorro and Esteban, but it was applied for before such marriage. The ownership had transferred to Esteban before his marriage to Socorro despite the title being issued later.
• During trial, the Abuda spouses presented receipts evidencing payments of the amortizations for the Delpan property.
  • Edilberto failed to show any evidence showing Socorro s alleged monetary contributions.
• RTC Ruling:
  • the Vitas and Delpan properties are not conjugal. It held that what governs is Articles 144 and 485 of the Civil Code:
    • Art. 144. 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.
    • Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.
  • Socorro did not contribute any funds for the acquisition of the properties.
• CA’s ruling:
  • Sustained RTC decision but made some notes:
  • The RTC should have applied Article 148 of the Family Code and not 144 and 485 of the Civil Code.
    • only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
    • If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her share shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.

Issue:

Was the CA correct in upholding the decision of the RTC that the properties are not conjugal?

Ruling:

Yes.

Applying the foregoing provision, the Vitas and Delpan properties can be considered common property if:

1. these were acquired during the cohabitation of Esteban and Socorro; and
2. there is evidence that the properties were acquired through the parties’ actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry.

The title itself shows that the Vitas property is owned by Esteban alone. The phrase “married to Socorro Torres” is merely descriptive of his civil status, and does not show that Socorro co-owned the property.

The evidence on record also shows that Esteban acquired ownership over the Vitas property prior to his marriage to Socorro, even if the certificate of title was issued after the celebration of the marriage. Registration under the Torrens title system merely confirms, and does not vest title.

As to the amortizations paid by Evangeline

Even if payment was made by Evangeline, such was maid on behalf of her father.

Art. 1238 of the Civil Code provides

“Payment made by a third person who does not intend to be reimbursed by the debtor is deemed to be a donation, which requires the debtor s consent. But the payment is in any case valid as to the creditor who has accepted it.”

It is clear that Evangeline paid on behalf of her father, and the parties intended that the Delpan property would be owned by and registered under the name of Esteban.