Munoz v. Ramirez within twenty (20) years, through monthly salary deductions of P1,687.66.

GR No. 156125 | August 25, 2010| Meaning of Co-Ownership; Governing Law| Brion| The respondents then constructed a thirty-six (36)-square meter, two-story
Da Silva residential house on the lot. On July 14, 1993, the title to the subject property
was transferred to the petitioner by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated
Petitioner: Francisco Munoz
April 30, 1992, executed by Erlinda, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of
Respondents: Erlinda Ramirez and Eliseo Carlos
Eliseo, for a stated consideration of P602,000.00.
2. On September 24, 1993, the respondents filed a complaint with the RTC for
Recit-Ready: A lot was registered under a title which said that the property belonged
the nullification of the deed of absolute sale, claiming that there was no sale
to Erlinda Ramirez, married to Eliseo Carlos. They executed a mortgage on this
but only a mortgage transaction, and the documents transferring the title to
property to secure a P136,500.00 housing loan to be paid in 20 years. They
the petitioner’s name were falsified. The respondents presented the results
constructed a 36 sq meter, two-story house on the lot. The title was subsequently
of the scientific examination conducted by the National Bureau of
transferred to Munoz through a Deed of Absolute Sale in 1992. Said deed was
Investigation of Eliseo’s purported signatures in the Special Power of
executed by Erlinda for herself, as attorney-in-fact of Eliseo, for P602,000.00. Eliseo
Attorney dated April 29, 1992 and the Affidavit of waiver of rights dated April
and Erlinda filed a complaint for nullification of the deed of sale claiming that there
29, 1992, showing that they were forgeries. The petitioner, on the other hand,
was no sale, but a mortgage transaction, and that the deeds transferring ownership
introduced evidence on the paraphernal nature of the subject property since
were falsified. The spouses were even able to produce in evidence the finding of the
it was registered in Erlinda’s name.
NBI that the signatures in the SPA, and the rest of the paper work was falsified. To
3. The RTC ruled for petitioner finding that the property is paraphernal and
prove his claim, Munoz introduced evidence on the paraphernal nature of the
consequently, the NBI finding that Eliseo’s signatures in the special power of
property since it was registered in Erlinda’s name. The RTC ruled that the property
attorney and in the affidavit were forgeries was immaterial because Eliseo’s
was paraphernal, while the CA reversed this finding. Hence, the issue is W/N the
consent to the sale was not necessary. The CA reversed and held that
subject property is conjugal or paraphernal. The Court here held that the property is
pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 158 of the Civil Code and
paraphernal since Erlinda inherited the same from her father. This fact served to
Calimlim-Canullas v. Hon. Fortun, the subject property, originally Erlinda’s
rebut the presumption that the property was conjugal as provided by Articles 92 and
exclusive paraphernal property, became conjugal property when it was used
109 of the Family Code. While, as a general rule, all property acquired during the
as collateral for a housing loan that was paid through conjugal funds –
marriage, regardless of the manner of registration, is presumed to be conjugal, this
Eliseo’s monthly salary deductions.
fact may be rebutted as in the case at bar.

ISSUE/S:

Doctrine: Property acquired during marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse is

FACTS: Issue 1: As a general rule, all property acquired during the marriage, whether the
acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one
1. The residential lot in the subject property was registered in the name of or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. In the
Erlinda Ramirez, married to Eliseo Carlos (respondents). On April 6, 1989, present case, clear evidence that Erlinda inherited the residential lot from her father
Eliseo, a Bureau of Internal Revenue employee, mortgaged said lot, with has sufficiently rebutted this presumption of conjugal ownership pursuant to Articles
Erlinda’s consent, to the GSIS to secure a P136,500.00 housing loan, payable
92 and 109 of the Family Code. The residential lot, therefore, is Erlinda’s exclusive
paraphernal property.

Moreover, the CA’s reliance on Article 158 of the Civil Code and the case of Calimlim-
Canullas is misplaced. As the respondents were married during the effectivity of the
Civil Code, its provisions on conjugal partnership of gains (Articles 142 to 189) should
have governed their property relations. However, with the enactment of the Family
Code on August 3, 1989, the Civil Code provisions on conjugal partnership of gains,
including Article 158, have been superseded by those found in the Family Code
(Articles 105 to 133).

Article 120 of the Family Code, which supersedes Article 158 of the Civil Code,
provides the solution in determining the ownership of the improvements that are
made on the separate property of the spouses, at the expense of the partnership or
through the acts or efforts of either or both spouses. Applying the said provision to
the present case, the Court found that Eliseo paid a portion only of the GSIS loan
through monthly salary deductions. From April 6, 1989 to April 30, 1992, Eliseo paid
about P60,755.76, not the entire amount of the GSIS housing loan plus interest, since
the petitioner advanced the P176,445.27 paid by Erlinda to cancel the mortgage in
1992. Considering the P136,500.00 amount of the GSIS housing loan, it is fairly
reasonable to assume that the value of the residential lot is considerably more than
theP60,755.76 amount paid by Eliseo through monthly salary deductions. Thus, the
subject property remained the exclusive paraphernal property of Erlinda at the time
she contracted with the petitioner; the written consent of Eliseo to the transaction
was not necessary. The NBI finding that Eliseo’s signatures in the special power of
attorney and affidavit were forgeries was immaterial.