The document summarizes a court case regarding the partition of properties acquired during the marriage of Juan Sevilla Salas, Jr. and Eden Villena Aguila. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled that:
1) The marriage between Salas and Aguila was declared null due to psychological incapacity.
2) Properties discovered after the nullity ruling - consisting of three parcels of land in Quezon City and Manila - were determined to be subject to co-ownership since they were acquired during the union, despite being registered under Salas' name and a common law partner.
3) The partition of these discovered properties as ordered by the lower courts was upheld based on co-ownership
The document summarizes a court case regarding the partition of properties acquired during the marriage of Juan Sevilla Salas, Jr. and Eden Villena Aguila. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled that:
1) The marriage between Salas and Aguila was declared null due to psychological incapacity.
2) Properties discovered after the nullity ruling - consisting of three parcels of land in Quezon City and Manila - were determined to be subject to co-ownership since they were acquired during the union, despite being registered under Salas' name and a common law partner.
3) The partition of these discovered properties as ordered by the lower courts was upheld based on co-ownership
The document summarizes a court case regarding the partition of properties acquired during the marriage of Juan Sevilla Salas, Jr. and Eden Villena Aguila. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled that:
1) The marriage between Salas and Aguila was declared null due to psychological incapacity.
2) Properties discovered after the nullity ruling - consisting of three parcels of land in Quezon City and Manila - were determined to be subject to co-ownership since they were acquired during the union, despite being registered under Salas' name and a common law partner.
3) The partition of these discovered properties as ordered by the lower courts was upheld based on co-ownership
The document summarizes a court case regarding the partition of properties acquired during the marriage of Juan Sevilla Salas, Jr. and Eden Villena Aguila. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled that:
1) The marriage between Salas and Aguila was declared null due to psychological incapacity.
2) Properties discovered after the nullity ruling - consisting of three parcels of land in Quezon City and Manila - were determined to be subject to co-ownership since they were acquired during the union, despite being registered under Salas' name and a common law partner.
3) The partition of these discovered properties as ordered by the lower courts was upheld based on co-ownership
VILLENAAGUILA,respondent. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Intervention; The Rules of Court provide that only a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.Considering that Rubina failed to prove her title or her legal interest in the Discovered Properties, she has no right to intervene in this case. The Rules of Court provide that onlyapersonwhohasalegalinterestinthematterinlitigation,or inthesuccessofeitheroftheparties,oraninterestagainstboth,or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. _______________ *SECONDDIVISION.
253
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER23,2013
253
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
Civil Law; Husband and Wife; Property Relations; Article 147
of the Family Code applies to the union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code.In Dio v. Dio, 640 SCRA 178 (2011), we held that Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the unionofpartieswhoarelegallycapacitatedandnotbarredbyany impedimenttocontractmarriage,butwhosemarriageisnonetheless declaredvoidunderArticle36oftheFamilyCode.xxxUnderthis property regime, property acquired during the marriage is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through the couples joint efforts and governed by the rules on coownership. In the present case,Salasdidnotrebutthispresumption.Inasimilarcasewhere thegroundfornullityofmarriagewasalsopsychologicalincapacity, weheldthatthepropertiesacquiredduringtheunionoftheparties, as found by both the RTC and the CA, would be governed by co ownership.Accordingly,thepartitionoftheDiscoveredPropertiesas ordered by the RTC and the CA should be sustained, but on the basisofcoownershipandnotontheregimeofconjugalpartnership ofgains.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
resolutionoftheCourtofAppeals. ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. Oliver C. Ongforpetitioner. Edwin P. Sulit forrespondent. CARPIO,J.: The Case This petition for review on certiorari1 assails the 16 March2012Decision2andthe28June2012Resolution3of theCourt _______________ 1UnderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure. 2Rollo,pp.1021.PennedbyAssociateJusticeRomeoF.Barzawith AssociateJusticesNoelG.TijamandEdwinD.Sorongon,concurring. 3Id.,atpp.3132. 254
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
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
On10September2007,AguilafiledaManifestationand Motion9 stating that she discovered: (a) two 200square meter parcels of land with improvements located in San Bartolome,QuezonCity,coveredbyTransferCertificateof Title(TCT)No.N259299AandTCTNo.N255497;and(b) a108squaremeterparceloflandwithimprovementlocated inTondo,Manila,coveredbyTCTNo.243373(collectively, Discovered Properties). The registered owner of the DiscoveredPropertiesisJuanS.Salas,marriedtoRubina C. Salas. The manifestation was set for hearing on 21 September 2007. However, Salas notice of hearing was returned unserved with the remark, RTS Refused To Receive. On19September2007,SalasfiledaManifestationwith EntryofAppearance10requestingforanEntryofJudgment oftheRTCDecisionsincenomotionforreconsiderationor appealwasfiledandnoconjugalpropertywasinvolved. On 21 September 2007, the hearing for Aguilas manifestation ensued, with Aguila, her counsel and the state prosecutor present. During the hearing, Aguila testifiedthaton17April2007someoneinformedherofthe existence of the Discovered Properties. Thereafter, she verified the information and secured copies of TCTs of the Discovered Properties. When asked to clarify, Aguila testified that Rubina C. Salas (Rubina) is Salas common lawwife.11 On 8 February 2008, Salas filed an Opposition to the Manifestation12allegingthatthereisnoconjugalproperty to be partitioned based on Aguilas petition. According to Salas,Aguilasstatementwasajudicialadmissionandwas not made through palpable mistake. Salas claimed that AguilawaivedherrighttotheDiscoveredProperties.Salas likewiseenumeratedpropertiesheallegedlywaivedinfavor ofAguila, _______________ 9Id.,atpp.7172. 10Records,pp.188189. 11Id.,atp.174.TSN,21September2007,p.7. 12Rollo,pp.7376. 256
256
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
to wit: (1) parcels of land with improvements located in
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
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
recorded in the Registry of Deeds of the place in which the propertyissituated. SOORDERED.13
The RTC held that pursuant to the Rules,14 even upon
entryofjudgmentgrantingtheannulmentofmarriage,the court can proceed with the liquidation, partition and distributionoftheconjugalpartnershipofgainsifithasnot beenjudiciallyadjudicatedupon,asinthiscase.TheRTC found that the Discovered Properties are among the conjugal properties to be partitioned and distributed between Salas and Aguila. However, the RTC held that SalasfailedtoprovetheexistenceoftheWaivedProperties. On 11 November 2008, Rubina filed a Complaintin Intervention, claiming that: (1) she is Rubina Cortez, a widowandunmarriedtoSalas;(2)theDiscoveredProperties areherparaphernalproperties;(3)Salasdidnotcontribute moneytopurchasetheDiscoveredPropertiesashehadno permanent job in Japan; (4) the RTC did not acquire jurisdictionoverherasshewasnotapartyinthecase;and (5) she authorized her brother to purchase the Discovered Properties but because he was not wellversed with legal documentation,heregisteredthepropertiesinthenameof
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
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
1.The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial courts decision ordering the partition of the parcels of land covered byTCTNos.N 259299AandN255497inQuezonCityand aswellasthepropertyinManilacoveredbyTCTNo.243373 betweenpetitionerandrespondent. 2.The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial courts decisioninnotallowingRubinaC.Corteztointerveneinthis case18
The Ruling of the Court
Thepetitionlacksmerit. Since the original manifestation was an action for partition,thisCourtcannotorderadivisionoftheproperty, unlessitfirstmakesadeterminationastotheexistenceofa coownership.19 Thus, the settlement of the issue of ownershipisthefirststageinthisaction.20 Basicistherulethatthepartymakinganallegationina civilcasehastheburdenofprovingitbyapreponderanceof evidence.21 Salas alleged that contrary to Aguilas petition stating that they had no conjugal property, they actually acquired the Waived Properties during their marriage. However, the RTC found, and the CA affirmed, that Salas failedtoprovetheexistenceandacquisitionoftheWaived Propertiesduringtheirmarriage: _______________ 18Id.,atpp.4445. 19 Lacbayan v. Samoy, Jr., G.R. No. 165427, 21 March 2011, 645 SCRA 677; Ocampo v. Ocampo, 471 Phil. 519; 427 SCRA 545 (2004) citing Heirs of Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 438; 325 SCRA 552 (2000) and Catapusan v. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil. 586; 264 SCRA 534(1996). 20Id. 21RulesofCourt,Rule133,Sec.1. 260
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
Nasugbu, Batangas, certifying that [Aguila] has no real
property (land and improvement) listed in the Assessment Roll for taxation purposes, as of September 17, 2008. Such evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, has the presumptionofregularity.xxx. Sufficeittosaythatsuchrealpropertiesareexistingand registeredinthenameof[Aguila],certifiedtruecopiesthereof shouldhavebeentheonessubmittedtothisCourt.Moreover, there is also a presumption that properties registered in the RegistryofDeedsarealsodeclaredintheAssessmentRollfor taxationpurposes.22
On the other hand, Aguila proved that the Discovered
Properties were acquired by Salas during their marriage. Both the RTC and the CA agreed that the Discovered Properties registered in Salas name were acquired during his marriage with Aguila. The TCTs of the Discovered Propertieswereenteredon2July1999and29September 2003,ordur _______________ 22Rollo,pp.8586. 261
VOL.706,SEPTEMBER23,2013
261
Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
ing the validity of Salas and Aguilas marriage. In Villanueva v. Court of Appeals,23weheldthatthequestion of whether the properties were acquired during the marriage is a factual issue. Factual findings of the RTC, particularlyifaffirmedbytheCA,arebindingonus,except undercompellingcircumstancesnotpresentinthiscase.24 OnSalasallegationthathewasnotaccordeddueprocess for failing to attend the hearing of Aguilas manifestation, wefindtheallegationuntenable.Theessenceofdueprocess is opportunity to be heard. We hold that Salas was given such opportunity when he filed his opposition to the manifestation,submittedevidenceandfiledhisappeal. OnbothSalasandRubinascontentionthatRubinaowns the Discovered Properties, we likewise find the contention unmeritorious.TheTCTsstatethatJuanS.Salas,married to Rubina C. Salas is the registered owner of the Discovered Properties. A Torrens title is generally a conclusiveevidenceoftheownershipofthelandreferredto, because there is a strong presumption that it is valid and regularly issued.25 The phrase married to is merely descriptive of the civil status of the registered owner.26 Furthermore,Salasdidnotinitiallydisputetheownership of the Discovered Properties in his opposition to the manifestation. It was only when Rubina intervened that Salas supported Rubinas statement that she owns the DiscoveredProperties. ConsideringthatRubinafailedtoprovehertitleorher legalinterestintheDiscoveredProperties,shehasnoright to intervene in this case. The Rules of Court provide that onlya
_______________ 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)
Under this property regime, property acquired during
themarriageisprima faciepresumedtohavebeenobtained throughthecouplesjointeffortsandgovernedbytherules oncoownership.29Inthepresentcase,Salasdidnotrebut this presumption. In a similar case where the ground for nullity of marriage was also psychological incapacity, we held that the properties acquired during the union of the parties, as found by both the RTC and the CA, would be governed by coownership.30 Accordingly, the partition of the Discovered Properties as ordered by the RTC and the CA should be sustained, but on the basis of coownership andnotontheregimeofconjugalpartnershipofgains. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM theDecisiondated16March2012andtheResolutiondated 28 June 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 95322. SO ORDERED. Brion, Del Castillo, Perez and PerlasBernabe, JJ., concur. _______________ 29 Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City, 328 Phil. 1289; 260 SCRA221(1996). 30 Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 264; 454 SCRA 261 (2005).
264
264
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Salas, Jr. vs. Aguila
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.Acourtspowertoallowordenyinterventionis circumscribed by the basic demand of sound judicial procedure that only a person with interest in an action or proceeding may be allowed to intervene. (Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni, 636 SCRA 420 [2010]) Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originallyimpleadedintheproceedings,becomesalitigant thereintoenablehim,herorittoprotectorpreservearight or interest which may be affected by such proceedings. (MactanCebu International Airport Authority vs. Heirs of Estanislao Mioza,641SCRA520[2011])
o0o
Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
