Salas vs. Aguila
Salas vs. Aguila
Salas vs. Aguila
253
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER23,2013
253
254
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
ofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.95322.TheCAaffirmed
the26September2008Order4oftheRegionalTrialCourtof
Nasugbu, Batangas, Branch 14 (RTC), in Civil Case No.
787.
The Facts
On7September1985,petitionerJuanSevillaSalas,Jr.
(Salas) and respondent Eden Villena Aguila (Aguila) were
married. On 7 June 1986, Aguila gave birth to their
daughter, Joan Jiselle. Five months later, Salas left their
conjugal dwelling. Since then, he no longer communicated
withAguilaortheirdaughter.
On7October2003,AguilafiledaPetitionforDeclaration
of Nullity of Marriage (petition) citing psychological
incapacityunderArticle36oftheFamilyCode.Thepetition
statesthattheyhavenoconjugalpropertieswhatsoever.5
In the Return of Summons dated 13 October 2003, the
sheriff narrated that Salas instructed his mother Luisa
Salastoreceivethecopyofsummonsandthepetition.6
On7May2007,theRTCrenderedaDecision7declaring
the nullity of the marriage of Salas and Aguila (RTC
Decision). The RTC Decision further provides for the
dissolutionoftheirconjugalpartnershipofgains,ifany.8
_______________
4Id.,atpp.7787.PennedbyJudgeWilfredoDeJoyaMayor.
5Id.,atp.59.
6Records,p.9.
7Rollo,pp.6170.PennedbyJudgeElihuA.Ibaez.
8Id.,atp.70.Thedispositiveportionreads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
DECLARINGTHENULLITYofthemarriageofpetitionerEdenVillena
Aguila Salas and respondent Juan Sevilla Salas, Jr. which was
celebrated on September 7, 1985 and the DISSOLUTION of their
conjugalpartnershipofgains,ifany.
SOORDERED.
255
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER23,2013
255
256
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
Silangan,Nasugbu,Batangas;andBatangasCity,financed
by Filinvest; (2) cash amounting to P200,000.00; and (3)
motor vehicles, specifically Honda City and Toyota
Tamaraw FX (collectively, Waived Properties). Thus,
Salas contended that the conjugal properties were deemed
partitioned.
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Inits26September2008Order,theRTCruledinfavor
ofAguila.ThedispositiveportionoftheOrderreads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises being considered, the
petitionerandtherespondentareherebydirectedtopartition
betweenthemselvesbyproperinstrumentsofconveyance,the
followingproperties,withoutprejudicetothelegitimeoftheir
legitimatechild,JoanJisselleAguilaSalas:
(1)AparceloflandregisteredinthenameofJuan
S. Salas married to Rubina C. Salas located in San
Bartolome, Quezon City and covered by TCT No. N
259299AmarkedasExhibitAanditsimprovements;
(2)AparceloflandregisteredinthenameofJuan
S. Salas married to Rubina C. Salas located in San
Bartolome, Quezon City and covered by TCT No. N
255497markedasExhibitBanditsimprovements;
(3)AparceloflandregisteredinthenameofJuan
S. Salas married to Rubina Cortez Salas located in
TondoandcoveredbyTCTNo.243373Ind.markedas
ExhibitDanditsimprovements.
Thereafter,theCourtshallconfirmthepartitionsoagreed
upon by the parties, and such partition, together with the
OrderoftheCourtconfirmingthesame,shallbe
257
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER23,2013
257
JuanS.Salas,marriedtoRubinaC.Salas.
In its 16 December 2009 Order, the RTC denied the
Motion for Reconsideration filed by Salas. The RTC found
that Salas failed to prove his allegation that Aguila
transferred the Waived Properties to third persons. The
RTCemphasizedthatitcannotgobeyondtheTCTs,which
state that Salas is the registered owner of the Discovered
Properties.TheRTC
_______________
13Id.,atp.87.
14 Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
AnnulmentofVoidableMarriages(A.M.No.021110SC),Section21.
258
258
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
furtherheldthatSalasandRubinawereatfaultforfailing
to correct the TCTs, if they were not married as they
claimed.
Hence,SalasfiledanappealwiththeCA.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On 16 March 2012, the CA affirmed the order of the
RTC.15TheCAruledthatAguilasstatementinherpetition
is not a judicial admission. The CA pointed out that the
petitionwasfiledon7October2003,butAguilafoundthe
Discovered Properties only on 17 April 2007 or before the
promulgationoftheRTCdecision.Thus,theCAconcluded
that Aguila was palpably mistaken in her petition and it
wouldbeunfairtopunishheroveramatterthatshehadno
knowledgeofatthetimeshemadetheadmission.TheCA
alsoruledthatSalaswasnotdeprivedoftheopportunityto
refute Aguilas allegations in her manifestation, even
thoughhewasnotpresentinitshearing.TheCAlikewise
held that Rubina cannot collaterally attack a certificate of
title.
InaResolutiondated28June2012,16theCAdeniedthe
Motion for Reconsideration17 filed by Salas. Hence, this
petition.
The Issues
Salasseeksareversalandraisesthefollowingissuesfor
resolution:
_______________
15Rollo,pp.2021.ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,inlightoftheforegoing,theinstantappealishereby
DENIEDforlackofmerit.Theappealedordersofthelowercourtdated
September26,2008andDecember16,2009areherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
16Id.,atpp.3132.
17Id.,atpp.2229.
259
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER23,2013
259
260
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
A perusal of the record shows that the documents
submitted by [Salas] as the properties allegedly registered in
thenameof[Aguila]aremerelyphotocopiesandnotcertified
true copies, hence, this Court cannot admit the same as part
oftherecordsofthiscase.Thesearethefollowing:
(1)TCT No. T65876 a parcel of land located at
Poblacion, Nasugbu, Batangas, registered in the name
of Eden A. Salas, married to Juan Salas Jr. which is
cancelled by TCT No. T
105443 in the name of Joan
JiselleA.Salas,single;
(2)TCTNo.T68066aparceloflandsituatedin
the Barrio of Landing, Nasugbu, Batangas, registered
inthenameofEdenA.Salas,marriedtoJuanS.Salas
Jr.
Moreover,[Aguila]submittedoriginalcopyofCertification
issued by Ms. Erlinda A. Dasal, Municipal Assessor of
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER23,2013
261
_______________
23471Phil.394;427SCRA439(2004).
24 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Poblete, G.R. No. 196577, 25
February2013,691SCRA613citingMontecillo v. Reynes,434Phil.456;
385SCRA244(2002).
25Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals,G.R.No.184589,13June2013,698
SCRA352.
26 De Leon v. Rehabilitation Finance Corp., 146 Phil. 862; 36 SCRA
289(1970)citingLitam v. Espiritu,100Phil.364(1956).
262
262
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
personwhohasalegalinterestinthematterinlitigation,or
inthesuccessofeitheroftheparties,oraninterestagainst
both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distributionorotherdispositionofpropertyinthecustodyof
thecourtorofanofficerthereofmay,withleaveofcourt,be
allowedtointerveneintheaction.27
InDio v. Dio,28weheldthatArticle147oftheFamily
Code applies to the union of parties who are legally
capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract
marriage,butwhosemarriageisnonethelessdeclaredvoid
underArticle36oftheFamilyCode,asinthiscase.Article
147oftheFamilyCodeprovides:
ART.147.When a man and a woman who are
capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each
otherashusbandandwifewithoutthebenefitofmarriageor
under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be
ownedbytheminequalsharesandthe property acquired
by both of them through their work or industry shall
be governed by the rules on coownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties
acquired while they lived together shall be presumed
to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or
industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares.
ForpurposesofthisArticle,apartywhodidnotparticipatein
the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be
deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof
if the formers efforts consisted in the care and maintenance
ofthefamilyandofthehousehold.
Neitherparty can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos
of his or her share in the property acquired during
cohabitationandownedincommon,withouttheconsent
_______________
27RULESOF COURT ,Rule19,Sec.1.
28G.R.No.178044,19January2011,640SCRA178citingMercadoFehr v.
Bruno Fehr,460Phil.445;414SCRA288(2003).
263
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER23,2013
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
263
oftheother,untilaftertheterminationoftheircohabitation.
Whenonlyoneofthepartiestoavoidmarriageisingood
faith,theshareofthepartyinbadfaithinthecoownership
shallbeforfeitedinfavoroftheircommonchildren.Incaseof
default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or
their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the
respective surviving descendants. In the absence of
descendants,suchshareshallbelongtotheinnocentparty.In
all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of
thecohabitation.(Emphasissupplied)
264
264
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
o0o