Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    #225 Borromeo V Descallar - Nieto

    Uploaded by

    Yanna Beatriz Nieto
    Jambrich, an Austrian national, lived with respondent Descallar while still legally married to another. Properties were acquired during their cohabitation but registered solely under Descallar's name since Jambrich was prohibited from owning land. Jambrich later sold his rights and interests in the properties to petitioner Borromeo to pay off debts. However, Descallar contested ownership. The Court ruled in favor of Borromeo, finding that since the relationship was adulterous, no co-ownership existed, and Jambrich proved he solely financed the property purchases. Thus, he had authority to transfer his rights to Borromeo.

    Copyright:

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

    #225 Borromeo V Descallar - Nieto

    Uploaded by

    Yanna Beatriz Nieto
    33 views1 page
    Jambrich, an Austrian national, lived with respondent Descallar while still legally married to another. Properties were acquired during their cohabitation but registered solely under Descallar's name since Jambrich was prohibited from owning land. Jambrich later sold his rights and interests in the properties to petitioner Borromeo to pay off debts. However, Descallar contested ownership. The Court ruled in favor of Borromeo, finding that since the relationship was adulterous, no co-ownership existed, and Jambrich proved he solely financed the property purchases. Thus, he had authority to transfer his rights to Borromeo.

    Original Title

    #225 Borromeo v Descallar - Nieto

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jambrich, an Austrian national, lived with respondent Descallar while still legally married to another. Properties were acquired during their cohabitation but registered solely under Descallar's name since Jambrich was prohibited from owning land. Jambrich later sold his rights and interests in the properties to petitioner Borromeo to pay off debts. However, Descallar contested ownership. The Court ruled in favor of Borromeo, finding that since the relationship was adulterous, no co-ownership existed, and Jambrich proved he solely financed the property purchases. Thus, he had authority to transfer his rights to Borromeo.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views1 page

    #225 Borromeo V Descallar - Nieto

    Uploaded by

    Yanna Beatriz Nieto
    Jambrich, an Austrian national, lived with respondent Descallar while still legally married to another. Properties were acquired during their cohabitation but registered solely under Descallar's name since Jambrich was prohibited from owning land. Jambrich later sold his rights and interests in the properties to petitioner Borromeo to pay off debts. However, Descallar contested ownership. The Court ruled in favor of Borromeo, finding that since the relationship was adulterous, no co-ownership existed, and Jambrich proved he solely financed the property purchases. Thus, he had authority to transfer his rights to Borromeo.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Borromeo v Descallar 10.

    Thus, petitioner filed a complaint against


    GR 159310 | Feb. 24, 2009 | Puno respondent for recovery of real property,
    alleging that it was Jambrich alone who
    Facts: paid for the properties using his
    1. Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, arrived exclusive funds.
    in the Philippines in 1983 after he was
    assigned by his employer to work on a 11. Respondent belied the said allegations
    project in Mindoro. and stated that she used his exclusive
    funds to pay the same.
    2. In 1984, when he transferred to Cebu,
    he met respondent Antonietta Opalla- Issue: Whether or not the said properties belong
    Descallar, a separated mother of two to Jambrich, hence, he has the authority to
    boys who was working as a waitress at transfer all his rights over the subject properties
    St. Moritz. to petitioner.

    3. Jambrich and respondent fell in love and Ruling: Yes.


    decided to live together in a rented
    house in Mandaue. The Court ruled that the fact the
    disputed properties were acquired during the
    4. But, later on, they transferred to their couple’s cohabitation does not help the
    own house and lots at Agro-marco respondent. The rule that co-ownership applies
    Subdivision. In the contracts to sell to a man and a woman living exclusively with
    covering the properties, Jambrich and each other as husband and wife without the
    respondent were referred to as the benefit of marriage, but are otherwise
    buyers. And a Deed of Absolute Sale capacitated to amrry each other, does not apply.
    dated Nov. 16, 1987 was likewise issued
    in their favor. In this case, respondent was still legally
    married to another when she and Jambrich lived
    5. However, the Deed of Absolute Sale together. In such an adulterous relationship, no
    was registered only in the name of co-ownership exists between the parties. It is
    respondent because Jambrich is an necessary for each of the partners to prove his
    alien, and thus prohibited from acquiring or her actual contribution to the acquisition of the
    alienable lands of public domain. property in order to be able to lay claim to any
    portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and
    6. On 1991, respondent found a new equal contribution do not apply.
    boyfriends while Jambrich began to live
    with another woman. The Court held that in this case,
    Jambrich had proved that it was he who had the
    7. Sometime in 1986, Jambrich met financial capacity to pay the purchase price of
    petitioner Borromero and the former the subject properties. And Thus, he has all the
    purchased an engine and some authority to transfer all his rights, interests and
    accessories for his boat from petitioner, participation over the subject properties to
    for which he became indebted to the petitioner by virtue of the Deed of Assignment he
    latter for about P150,000. executed.

    8. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights


    and interests in the Agro-Macri
    properties to petitioner for 250,000.

    9. When petitioner sought to register the


    deed of assignment, he discovered that
    the titles of three lots have been
    transferred in the name of respondent,
    and that subject property has already
    been mortgaged.

    You might also like