FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 221874, July 07, 2020
AGRIFINA DULTRA VDA. DE CANADA, PETITIONER, V. CRESENCIA BACLOT, SUBSTITUTED BY SANCHITO BACLOT, ROBERTO CANADA, ALFREDA PORTUGUEZ, RENATO CANADA, RONALDO CANADA, RONEL CANADA AND RIZALINO CANADA, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., JR., J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,1 dated January 11, 2016 assailing the Decision2 dated June 17, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated October 5, 2015 of the Court of Appeals-Cagayan de Oro City (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 03018-MIN which dismissed the complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of properties, accounting, and damages filed by Agrifina Canada (petitioner) against Cresencia Baclot ( Cresencia ).
were likewise filed.
- Agricultural land located in Mahayahay, Talisay, Gingoog City covered by Tax Declaration No. 14881 in the name of Crescencia Baclot;
- Agricultural land located in Barangay 17, National Highway, Gingoong City and covered by Tax Declaration No. 14282;
- Lot No. 11, Cad. 295, located in Talisay, Gingoog City and declared in the name of Crescencia Baclot;
- Lot No. 4, Cad. 295, located in Talisay, Gingoog City and declared in the name of Crescenia Baclot; and
- Lot No. 10, Cad. 295, located in Talisay, Gingoog City and declared in the name of Crescencia Baclot.12
WHEREFORE, all premises considered and upon sheer preponderance of evidence, the court enters judgment for the plaintiffs as against defendants ordering and enjoining defendants to return, deliver and restore possession to the plaintiffs the following properties, to wit:Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR), which was denied in a Resolution17 dated June 4, 2012.Defendants are also directed to make an accounting of the fruits received from the properties beginning from the time of the death of Sancho Canada until the present and to pay plaintiffs attorney's fees in the amount of Php 25,000.00 and Php5,000.00 as litigation expenses.
- Commercial land acquired by Sancho Canada Maria Gurro in 1957, all in the name of Cresencia Baclot located at Poblacion, Gingoog City, with all improvements thereon having an area of 684 sq.m. and presently covered by TCT No. T-2190;
- Cocoland with all the improvements thereon located at Cabanti-an, Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental covered by Tax Declaration No. 17678s. 1974;
- Cocoland together with all the improvements thereon situated at Cabanti-an, Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental with an area of 3.0000 hectares and declared under Tax Declaration No. 17677s. 1974;
- Cocoland with all the improvements thereon located at Kitobao, Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental with an area of 11.2990 hectares and declared under Tax Declaration No. 17676 s. 1974;
- Coconut land together with all the improvements thereon consisting of 3.8700 hectares located at Mingcawayan, Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental and covered by Tax Declaration No. 17675 s. 1974;
- Unassessed agricultural land together with all the improvements thereon, with an area of 30 hectares located a[t] Malong, Gamay, Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental;
- Agricultural land located in Mahayahay, Talisay, Gingoog City covered by Tax Declaration No. 14881 in the name of Cresencia Baclot;
- Agricultural land located in Barangay 17, National Highway, Gingoog City covered by Tax Declaration No. 14282 in the name of Sanchito Canada;
- Lot No. 11, Cad. 295, a four-hectare property located in Talisay, Gingoog City and declared in the name of Sanchito Canada;
- Lot No. 4, Cad 295, a two-hectare property located in Talisay, Gingoog City and declared in the name of Cresencia Baclot;
- Lot No. 10, Cad 295, a five-hectare property located in Talisay, Gingoog City and declared in the name of Cresencia Baclot.
SO ORDERED.16cralawlawlibrary
FOR THESE REASONS, the appealed Decision dated 12 March 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Gingoog City in Civil Case NO. 94-391 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and in its place judgment is rendered by having the Complaint DISMISSED for lack of merit.Aggrieved by such disposition, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution21 dated October 5, 2015.
SO ORDERED.20cralawlawlibrary
Art. 144 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.However, as pronounced in Tumlos v. Spouses Fernandez,24 Article 144 of said law applies only to a relationship between a man and a woman who are not incapacitated to marry each other, or to one in which the marriage of the parties is void from the beginning. In other words, the provision does not apply when the cohabitation amounts to adultery or concubinage.
Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.Simply put, the ownership of the properties jointly acquired by the parties who are cohabiting under the circumstances provided is relative to their respective contributions, requiring actual proof. In the absence of proof of their quantifiable actual contribution, their contributions are deemed equal. However, if proof of actual contribution per se was not shown, co-ownership will not arise. To expound: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her share shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith. (144a)
Under Article 148, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. It must be stressed that the actual contribution is required by this provision, in contrast to Article 147 which states that efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household, are regarded as contributions to the acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry. If the actual contribution of the party is not proved, there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares.27In this case, as aptly observed by the CA, the subject properties were registered in the name of Cresencia alone, except for the property in the name of Sanchito, who is the son of Cresencia and Sancho. While it is true that a certificate of title is not a conclusive proof of ownership as its issuance does not foreclose the possibility that such property may be co-owned by persons not named therein,28 the claimant must nonetheless prove his/her title in the concept of an owner. As it is, respondents failed to put forth evidence that Sancho is a co-owner. That Cresencia is a mere dressmaker who cannot afford the subject properties is a scorch to her industry and a condescending presumption.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 23-37.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello, with Associate Justices Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of the Court) and Pablito A. Perez, concurring; id at 65-84. 3
3 Id. at 94-95.
4 Id. at 66.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 38-41.
10 Id. at 39.
11 Id. at 42-43.
12 Id. at 51.
13 Id. at 46-48.
14 Id. at 68.
15 Penned by Judge Rustico D. Paderanga; id. at 50-59
16 Id. at 59.
17 Id at 60-62
18 Id. at 69-70.
19 Supra note 2.
20 Id. at 83-84.
21 Supra note 3.
22 Id. at 108-110.
23 Id. at 137-141.
24 G.R. No. 137650, April 12, 2000.
25 SEMPIO-DY, HANDBOOK ON TI IF FAMILY CODE OF TI IE PHILIPPINES, 23 (1995 ed.)
26 ART. 2.56. This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.
27Agapay v. Palang, G.R. No. 116668, 276 SCRA 340, July 28, 1997.
28See Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 1 15402. July 15, 1998.
29 G.R. No. 124118, March 27, 2000.
30See Saguid v. Cowl of Appeals. 451 Phil. 825-838 (2003).
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary