De La Pena v. Avila, G.R. No. 187490, Feb. 8, 2012

FACTS: Antonia Dela Pena, who was married to Antegono Dela Pena, obtained a loan from Aguila Sons and Co. As a security for the payment of the said loan, Antonia executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in favour of Aguila on their residential lot in Marikina. However, Antonia also executed a Deed Of absolute sale in favour of Gemma Avila over the same property because of Antonia’s failure to pay her obligation from Aguila. Gemma Avila also mortgaged the same property to Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC-BPI) to secure a loan from the bank. Antonia, together with her son Alvin John, filed against Gemma praying for the annulment of the said deed of sale. She claims that the said property was conjugal property and was sold without the consent of his husband who already died by that time. She also invokes the presumption of Conjugality under Art. 160 of the Civil Code.  The RTC ruled in favour of Antonia and upheld the presumption of conjugality. The CA ruled otherwise. Thus, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N the said property that was sold is part of the Conjugal Partnership

HELD: The presumption mentioned in the Art. 160 of the Civil Code applies only for the property acquired during marriage and does not operate when there is no showing as to when the property was acquired. Moreover, the presumption in favour of the conjugality is rebuttable, but only with strong, clear and convincing proof of exclusive ownership.

As the parties invoking the presumption of conjugality under Art. 160 of the Civil Code, the Dela Penas did not even come close to proving that the subject property was acquired during the Marriage between Antonia and Antegono. The record is bereft of evidence that from which the actual acquisition of the property by Antonia was during the Marriage.

Although the title stated in its registration that it is under the name of, “Antonia Dela Pena, married to Antegono dela Pena,”  such is merely a description of the  civil status of the wife and cannot mean that the husband is also a registered owner. The reason for the inconclusiveness of the said description is that it is possible that the property was acquired when she was single but only registered when she got married.