Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143286 April 14, 2004

FACTS: On 13 October 1988, Eusebia Retuya filed a complaint before the trial court against her husband Nicolas Retuya, Pacita Villanueva and Nicolas’ son with Pacita, Procopio Villanueva. Eusebia sought the reconveyance from Nicolas and Pacita of several properties (subject properties), claiming that such are her conjugal properties with Nicolas. Plaintiff Eusebia, is the legal wife of defendant Nicolas, having been married on October 7, 1926.  Out of the lawful wedlock, they begot five (5) children. Spouses Retuya resided at Mandaue City. During their marriage, they acquired real properties and all improvements situated in Mandaue City, and Consolacion, Cebu. Nicolas is the co-owner of a parcel of land situated in Mandaue City which he inherited from his parents Esteban Retuya and Balbina Solon as well as the purchasers of hereditary shares of approximately eight (8) parcels of land in Mandaue City. Some of the properties earn income from coconuts leased to corporations

In 1945, Nicolas no longer lived with his legitimate family and cohabited with defendant, Pacita Villanueva, wherein Procopio Villanueva, is their illegitimate son.  Nicolas, then, was the only person who received the income of the properties. Pacita, from the time she started living in concubinage with Nicolas, has no occupation. She had no properties of her own from which she could derive income. From the time Nicolas suffered stroke until the present, his illegitimate son is already the one who has been receiving the income of his properties

Settlement between parties was asked but not met. Trial court in favor of Eusebia Natuya. Petitioners appealed. Eusebia died, and was then substituted by her heirs. CA upheld trial court’s decision

ISSUE: Whether or not the subject properties acquired during the marriage between Eusebia and Procopio are conjugal

HELD: YES, they are conjugal. Petition denied; decision of CA affirmed

RATIO: The Family Code provisions on conjugal partnerships govern the property relations between Nicolas and Eusebia even if they were married before the effectivity of Family Code.

Article 105 of the Family Code explicitly mandates that the Family Code shall apply to conjugal partnerships established before the Family Code without prejudice to vested rights already acquired under the Civil Code or other laws. Thus, under the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during the marriage, the presumption is that they are conjugal. The burden of proof is on the party claiming that they are not conjugal. This is counter-balanced by the requirement that the properties must first be proven to have been acquired during the marriage before they are presumed conjugal.

Nicolas and Eusebia were married on 7 October 1926. Nicolas and Pacita started cohabiting in 1936. Eusebia died on 23 November 1996. Pacita and Nicolas were married on 16 December 1996. Petitioners themselves admit that Lot No. 152 was purchased on 4 October 1957. The date of acquisition of Lot No. 152 is clearly during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia.

Since the subject properties, including Lot No. 152, were acquired during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia, the presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code is that all these are conjugal properties of Nicolas and Eusebia.