Maxey Vs CA

G.R. No.
L-45870 May 11, 1984
MARGARET MAXEY assisted by Santiago Magbanua; FLORENCE MAXEY assisted by

Ofrecinio Santos; and LUCILLE MAXEY, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE SPOUSES BEATO C. MACAYRA
and ALACOPUE MONDAY, respondents.
FACTS:
In 1903, Melbourne Maxey and Regina Morales started living together and out of their union,
they were given six children namely: John Carlos, Lucille, Margaret, Florence, Fred and George.
Their children claim that their parents were united in 1903 in a marriage performed "in the
military fashion".
Sometime in 1911 and 1912, Melbourne Maxey acquired a parcel of land which is the disputed
properties. Afterwards, Regina Morales Maxey died in 1919 sometime after the church wedding.
The husband remarried and in 1953, his second wife Julia Pamatluan Maxey, using a power of
attorney, sold the properties to the respondent spouses, Mr. and Mrs. Beato C. Macayra.
On January 26, 1962, the plaintiffs instituted the present case before the Court of First Instance
of Davao, praying for the annulment of the documents of sale covering the subject parcels of
land and to recover possession thereof with damages from the herein defendants-spouses, and
contends that the properties in litigation is the common properties of their parents. They further
alleged that the properties were executed and sold by their father without their knowledge and
consent and that came to know of such sale in the year 1961.
On the other hand, the respondents, deny the material allegations of the complaint and assert by
way of affirmative defenses that they are the true and lawful owners and possessors of the
properties in question having purchased the same in good faith and for value from Melbourne
Maxey during his lifetime in 1953 and since then, they are in possession of the land.
The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners declaring the sale null and void and order the
return of the property and payment of the value thereof. On appeal, the Court of Appeals set
aside the ruling of the trial court and ruled that the parcels of, land to be exclusive properties of
the late Melbourne Maxey which makes the sale valid. Thus, by virtue of the sale, the appellants
are the absolute owners of the properties in question.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Melbourne Maxey and Regina Morales Maxey is validly married only in
1919.
2. Whether or not the parcel of land in litigation is the exclusive properties of Melbourne
Maxey.
RULING:
1. Yes, Melbourne Maxey and Regina Morales Maxey is validly married only in the year
1919.
The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals both ruled that Melbourne Maxey and
Regina Morales were married only in 1919. This is a finding of fact which we do not disturb
at this stage of the case. There is no showing that this factual finding is totally devoid of or
unsupported by evidentiary basis or that it is inconsistent with the evidence of record.
2. No, the property in question is not the exclusive property of Melbourne Maxey.
Under the Article 144 of the Civil Code which provides
“When a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or
their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them
through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on
co-ownership.”
With the enactment of the new Civil Code, Article 144 codified the law established through
judicial precedents but with the modification that the property governed by the rules on co-
ownership may be acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry. Even if
it is only the man who works, the property acquired during the man and wife relationship
belongs through a fifty-fifty sharing to the two of them.
This new article in the Civil Code recognizes that it would be unjust and abnormal if a
woman who is a wife in all aspects of the relationship except for the requirement of a valid
marriage must abandon her home and children, neglect her traditional household duties, and
go out to earn a living or engage in business before the rules on co-ownership would apply.
This article is particularly relevant in this case where the "common-law" relationship was
legitimated through a valid marriage 34 years before the properties were sold.
The "real contribution" to the acquisition of property mentioned in Yaptinchay vs. Torres (28
SCRA 489) must include not only the earnings of a woman from a profession, occupation, or
business but also her contribution to the family's material and spiritual goods through caring
for the children, administering the household, husbanding scarce resources, freeing her
husband from household tasks, and otherwise performing the traditional duties of a
housewife.
Should Article 144 of the Civil Code be applied in this case? Our answer is "Yes" because
there is no showing that vested rights would be impaired or prejudiced through its
application.

Maxey Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maxey Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maxey Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-45870 May 11, 1984

MARGARET MAXEY assisted by Santiago Magbanua; FLORENCE MAXEY assisted by

Under the Article 144 of the Civil Code which provides

You might also like