Está en la página 1de 1


A LAW EACH DAY(KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) | Updated May 28,
2014 - 12:00am

The rule is that any and all properties of the marriage are presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to
the wife (Article 160, Civil Code). For this presumption to apply however, the party
invoking it must first proved when the property was acquired. This is the rule applied in this
case of Caridad.

Caridad was married to Alfredo. They had nine children, four boys and five girls. Their conjugal
partnership however was terminated when Alfredo died. Two years after Alfredo’s death, Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCTs) over four lots situated in Cebu City were issued in the name of “Caridad,
Filipino, of legal age, widow.”

Initially, Caridad used the lots as collateral to borrow money from Sergio. Since she was unable to pay the
loan, she sold the lots to Bert in order to pay said loan and prevent foreclosure of the mortgage, as
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale wherein she signed as the sole absolute owner of the property.
Eventually, new TCTs were already issued in the name of Bert.

Thirteen years later however, Rosario’s nine children led by Alfredo, Jr., filed a complaint before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) for re-conveyance and annulment of the sale to Bert and cancellation of his
TCTs. They claimed, among others, that the subject properties were presumed to be conjugal properties
of their parents to which they have their respective shares as their inheritance from their late father
Alfredo. Relying on this presumption they didn’t adduce evidence any more to establish when the
properties were acquired and whether they were acquired with conjugal funds.

The RTC dismissed the children’s complaint, ruling that the properties were the exclusive properties of
their mother Caridad since the TCTs were all under her name as sole and absolute owner. But on appeal
to the Court of Appeals (CA), the RTC decision was set aside as the CA declared that said properties
were indeed presumed to be the conjugal properties of Caridad and her late husband Alfredo. Was the
CA correct?

No.The presumption in favor of the conjugality does not operate if there is no showing
as to when the properties alleged to be conjugal were acquired. When the properties
are registered in the name of only one spouse and there is no showing as to when they
were acquired, this is an indication that the properties belong exclusively to the said
In this case the conjugal partnership of Caridad and Alfredo was already terminated upon the death of the
latter, while the TCTs were issued two years later solely in the name of “Caridad, Filipino, of legal age,
widow”. On the other hand no evidence was adduced by the children to establish that the subject
properties were acquired during the marriage of their parents or that the same were bought with conjugal
funds. So the sale to Bert is valid (Tan vs. Andrade, G.R. 171904, August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA, 198).