Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Atienza v. de Castro

    Uploaded by

    AprilMartel
    1) The court ruled that Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs property relations in extramarital unions, can be applied even if the cohabitation occurred before the Code took effect, as it was intended to address gaps in previous law. 2) The court also ruled that Lupo failed to prove his actual contribution to the purchase of the disputed property, as required by Article 148, while Yolanda provided substantial evidence that she acquired it solely using her own funds from business ventures. 3) Therefore, the property was ruled to be solely owned by Yolanda, and the limited co-ownership regime of Article 148 did not apply due to Lupo's failure to prove

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Atienza v. de Castro

    Uploaded by

    AprilMartel
    42 views3 pages
    1) The court ruled that Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs property relations in extramarital unions, can be applied even if the cohabitation occurred before the Code took effect, as it was intended to address gaps in previous law. 2) The court also ruled that Lupo failed to prove his actual contribution to the purchase of the disputed property, as required by Article 148, while Yolanda provided substantial evidence that she acquired it solely using her own funds from business ventures. 3) Therefore, the property was ruled to be solely owned by Yolanda, and the limited co-ownership regime of Article 148 did not apply due to Lupo's failure to prove

    Original Description:

    14. Atienza v. de Castro

    Original Title

    14. Atienza v. de Castro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The court ruled that Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs property relations in extramarital unions, can be applied even if the cohabitation occurred before the Code took effect, as it was intended to address gaps in previous law. 2) The court also ruled that Lupo failed to prove his actual contribution to the purchase of the disputed property, as required by Article 148, while Yolanda provided substantial evidence that she acquired it solely using her own funds from business ventures. 3) Therefore, the property was ruled to be solely owned by Yolanda, and the limited co-ownership regime of Article 148 did not apply due to Lupo's failure to prove

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    42 views3 pages

    Atienza v. de Castro

    Uploaded by

    AprilMartel
    1) The court ruled that Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs property relations in extramarital unions, can be applied even if the cohabitation occurred before the Code took effect, as it was intended to address gaps in previous law. 2) The court also ruled that Lupo failed to prove his actual contribution to the purchase of the disputed property, as required by Article 148, while Yolanda provided substantial evidence that she acquired it solely using her own funds from business ventures. 3) Therefore, the property was ruled to be solely owned by Yolanda, and the limited co-ownership regime of Article 148 did not apply due to Lupo's failure to prove

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Subject: PFAM

    Doctrine:​ ​Limited Co-Ownership Property Regime for Adulterous Relationships


    Allegations must be proven with substantial evidence for
    limited co-ownership regime be invoked. (Art. 48 FC)
    Topic: Property Relations between Spouses
    Sub-Topic: Property Regimes of Union Without Marriage
    Digester: APril Martel
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    G.R. No. 169698 November 29, 2006


    Atienza v. De Castro
    GARCIA, ​J.​:

    Facts:
    ● Sometime in 1983, Lupo, a married man hired Yolanda as accountant of his two
    corporations, Enrico Shipping Corporation and Eurasian Maritime Corporation
    ● Later, Lupo and Yolanda’s relationship became intimate and in the later part of the year,
    Lupo and Yolanda cohabited as husband and wife.
    ● During their coverture, they allegedly acquired a real property and registered it under the
    name of Yolanda.
    ● Their cohabitation turned sour, hence, they parted.
    ● Lupo filed an action for partition of the real property contending that they owned the
    property in common. It was acquired during his union with Yolanda as common-law
    husband and wife, hence the property is co-owned by them.
    ● Yolanda contended that she alone was the owner as she acquired it through her
    exclusive funds as a businesswoman.
    ● The RTC declared the property subject of co-ownership, but the CA reversed it as Lupo
    failed to prove his material contribution in the acquisition of the subject property.
    ● On appeal, Lupo contended that he was not burdened to prove his contribution in the
    acquisition of the property as with or without contribution he was deemed a co-owner.
    ● He justified his contentions under Article 484, NCC that for as long as they acquired the
    property during their extramarital union, such property would be legally owned by them in
    common and governed by the rules on co-ownership.
    Issue:
    (1) WON Art. 148 of the Family Code which governs the property relations in extramarital
    unions be applied when the cohabitation took place before the Family Code took effect.
    (2) WON Lupo’s presented evidence were substantial to prove his allegations that Yolanda
    having no financial capacity to acquire the property in question, merely manipulated the
    dollar bank accounts of his two (2) corporations to raise the amount needed to purchase
    the property.

    Ruling:
    WON Art. 148 of the Family Code which governs the property relations in extramarital unions be
    applied when the cohabitation took place before the Family Code took effect.

    Yes, Art. 148 of the Family Code which governs the property relations in extramarital
    unions can be applied even when the cohabitation took place before the Family Code took
    effect.
    The Family Code took effect on August 3, 1998. Article 148 of the said code provides
    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. Proof of actual contribution is required.

    In this case, although the adulterous cohabitation of the parties commenced in 1983,
    way before the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1998, Article 148 still applies. Before
    Article 148 of the Family Code was enacted, there was no provision governing property relations
    of couples living in a state of adultery or concubinage.

    Article 148 of the Family Code which governs the property relations of extramarital
    unions was specifically and precisely intended to fill up the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil
    Code. Under Article 144 of the CIvil Code, one has no burden to prove that he contributed to the
    acquisition of the subject property because with or without the contribution by either partner, he
    is deemed a co-owner of a property acquired during an extramarital union or cohabitation.
    Art. 148 of the Family Code intended to solve this hiatus and provides that proof of actual
    contribution shall be required before the properties acquired by both through their actual joint
    contribution be commonly owned subject to proportion of their respective contributions.

    Hence, even if the cohabitation or the acquisition of the property occurred before the
    Family Code took effect, Article 148 governs

    WON Lupo’s presented evidence were substantial to prove his allegations that Yolanda having
    no financial capacity to acquire the property in question, merely manipulated the dollar bank
    accounts of his two (2) corporations to raise the amount needed to purchase the property.

    No, Lupo’s presented evidence were not substantial to prove his allegations that
    Yolanda having no financial capacity to acquire the property in question, merely manipulated the
    dollar bank accounts of his two (2) corporations to raise the amount needed to purchase the
    property.

    Article 148 of the Family Code provides that proof of actual contribution shall be required
    BEFORE the properties acquired by both through their actual joint contribution be COMMONLY
    owned subject to proportion of their respective contributions.1

    In the present case, Luco failed to overcome his burden to prove his contribution to the
    acquisition of the subject property. His claim to the property contradicts duly written instruments
    provided by the respondents, i.e.,

    1
    ​Lupo and Yolanda were clearly incapacitated to marry each other. Nonetheless, they cohabited
    as husband and wife, and during such cohabitation acquired properties. The regime of limited
    co-ownership of property then, clearly applies.# Co-ownership will only be up to the extent of the
    PROVEN actual contribution of money, property or industry. Absent PROOF of the extent
    thereof, their contributions and corresponding shares shall be presumed to be equal.
    Additionally, the regime of limited co-ownership shall not apply when proof to the contrary
    regarding actual contribution to the subject property is present.
    (1) the Contract to Sell dated March 24, 1987,
    (2) the Deed of Assignment of Redemption dated March 27, 1987 and
    (3) the Deed of Transfer dated April 27, 1987, all entered into by and between the
    respondent and the vendor of said property, to the exclusion of the petitioner.

    Rather than presenting proof of his actual contribution to the purchase money used as
    consideration for the disputed property, [Lupo] diverted the burden imposed upon him to
    [Yolanda] by painting her as a shrewd and scheming woman without the capacity to purchase
    any property. Instead of proving his ownership, or the extent thereof, over the subject property,
    [Lupo] relegated his complaint to a mere attack on the financial capacity of [Yolanda]. He
    presented documents pertaining to the ins and outs of the dollar accounts of ENRICO and
    EURASIAN, which unfortunately failed to prove his actual contribution in the purchase of the
    said property.

    True, the mere issuance of a certificate of title in the name of any person does not
    foreclose the possibility that the real property covered thereby may be under co-ownership with
    persons not named in the certificate or that the registrant may only be a trustee or that other
    parties may have acquired interest subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title.
    However, as already stated, petitioner’s evidence in support of his claim is either insufficient or
    immaterial to warrant the trial court’s finding that the disputed property falls under the purview of
    Article 148 of the Family Code. In contrast to petitioner’s dismal failure to prove his cause,
    herein respondent was able to present preponderant evidence of her sole ownership. There can
    clearly be no co-ownership when, as here, the respondent sufficiently established that she
    derived the funds used to purchase the property from her earnings, not only as an accountant
    but also as a businesswoman engaged in foreign currency trading, money lending and jewelry
    retail. She presented her clientele and the promissory notes evincing substantial dealings with
    her clients. She also presented her bank account statements and bank transactions, which
    reflect that she had the financial capacity to pay the purchase price of the subject property.

    Hence, the subject property is solely owned by Yolanda as Luco failed to prove his
    allegations whereas, Yolanda was able to present substantial evidence of her claim of
    acquisition of the property using her exclusive funds. Regime of limited co-ownership under
    Article 48 then, do not apply under this purview.

    You might also like