Belcodero vs. Court of Appeals

Property acquired by a spouse during marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, and where such property is registered in the name of a common-law spouse, a constructive trust is created by operation of law, obligating the trustee to reconvey the property to the rightful owners.

Alayo D. Bosing, married to Juliana Oday in 1927, deserted his family in 1946 to live with Josefa Rivera. In 1949, he purchased a parcel of land on installment, misrepresenting his civil status as married to Josefa. The final deed of sale was executed in 1959, and title was issued in Josefa's name at Alayo's direction. Alayo subsequently entered into a bigamous marriage with Josefa in 1958. After Alayo's death in 1967, Josefa and her daughter with Alayo, petitioner Josephine Belcodero, executed an extrajudicial partition and sale, adjudicating the property to themselves as if they were the sole legal heirs. Juliana and her legitimate children later filed an action for reconveyance.

• Parties and Relationships: Alayo D. Bosing was lawfully married to Juliana Oday, with whom he had three children. In 1946, he deserted his family to cohabit with Josefa Rivera, with whom he had a child, petitioner Josephine Belcodero. Alayo and Josefa entered into a bigamous marriage in 1958 while his marriage to Juliana subsisted.
• Acquisition of the Subject Property: On 23 August 1949, Alayo purchased a parcel of land from Magdalena Estate, Inc. on an installment basis. In the deed, he falsely stated he was "married to Josefa R. Bosing." The final deed of sale was executed on 24 October 1959.
• Titling in the Name of the Common-Law Spouse: By letter dated 06 October 1959, Alayo authorized Magdalena Estate, Inc. to transfer the lot to the name of his "wife Josefa R. Bosing." Consequently, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 48790 was issued on 09 November 1959 in the name of "Josefa R. Bosing, . . . married to Alayo Bosing."
• Extrajudicial Partition and Sale: Alayo died on 11 March 1967. On 17 September 1970, Josefa and Josephine executed a deed of extrajudicial partition and sale, treating the property as the "conjugal property" of Josefa and the deceased Alayo. Josefa conveyed her supposed share to Josephine, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. 198840 in Josephine's name on 06 June 1974.
• Action for Reconveyance: Juliana Oday and her legitimate children filed a complaint for reconveyance on 30 October 1980.

• Prescription: Petitioner argued that the action for reconveyance had long prescribed, contending that the applicable prescriptive period was four years from the issuance of title in 1974.
• Nature of the Trust: Petitioner maintained that the action was not based on an implied or constructive trust.
• Exclusive Ownership: Petitioner contended that the property belonged exclusively to her and her mother, Josefa, asserting that Josefa had the financial means to purchase the property.
• New Trial: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in denying her motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which purportedly showed Josefa's financial capacity and Juliana's subsequent marriage.

• Conjugal Nature of the Property: Respondents countered that the property was acquired during the subsistence of Alayo's marriage to Juliana and was therefore presumed to be conjugal property.
• Constructive Trust: Respondents argued that the registration of the property in Josefa's name and its subsequent adjudication to petitioner created an implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code.
• Timeliness of the Action: Respondents maintained that the ten-year prescriptive period for reconveyance based on an implied trust applied, and the action was filed within this period.
• Impropriety of New Trial: Respondents contended that the proffered evidence was not newly discovered and would not alter the outcome.

• Prescription: Whether the action for reconveyance had prescribed.
• Existence of a Constructive Trust: Whether the facts gave rise to an implied or constructive trust.
• Ownership of the Property: Whether the subject property belonged exclusively to the petitioner or to the conjugal partnership of Alayo and his legitimate wife, Juliana.
• Propriety of a New Trial: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

• Prescription: The action had not prescribed. The prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust involving titled real property is ten years, counted from the date of registration of the disputed conveyance. Since the action was filed on 30 October 1980, less than six years and four months after the issuance of TCT No. 198840 on 06 June 1974, it was seasonably filed.
• Existence of a Constructive Trust: A constructive trust was created by operation of law. The property was acquired by Alayo during his marriage to Juliana. The subsequent adjudication of ownership following Alayo's death, where the property was treated as the conjugal property of Alayo and Josefa and partitioned as if they were lawful spouses, constituted a scenario where property was acquired through mistake or fraud, giving rise to a constructive trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code.
• Ownership of the Property: The property belonged to the conjugal partnership of Alayo and his legitimate wife, Juliana. Under both the old and new Civil Codes, all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. This presumption was not rebutted. The titling in Josefa's name was merely an authorization by Alayo and did not transfer ownership. Josefa's own act in the extrajudicial partition implicitly recognized Alayo's ownership and the property's conjugal nature.
• Propriety of a New Trial: The denial of the motion for new trial was proper. The purported newly discovered evidence was, in fact, forgotten evidence that could have been presented during trial. Furthermore, even if admitted, it would not serve a useful purpose in altering the decision, as Juliana's subsequent marriage did not automatically disqualify her from inheriting in the absence of a timely action for legal separation filed by Alayo during his lifetime.

• Presumption of Conjurality — Under Article 160 of the Civil Code (and its predecessor, Article 1407 of the old Civil Code), all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to one spouse. This presumption applies regardless of whether the property was acquired before or after the effectivity of the Civil Code.
• Constructive Trust under Article 1456 — If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. This trust arises by operation of law, not from agreement.
• Prescriptive Period for Reconveyance of Titled Property — An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust involving registered land prescribes in ten years (Article 1144, Civil Code). The prescriptive period is counted from the date of registration of the deed or the issuance of the title, as this is the operative act that binds third parties.

• "The property unquestionably was acquired by Alayo. Alayo's letter, dated 06 October 1959, to Magdalena Estate, Inc., merely authorized the latter to have title to the property transferred to her name. More importantly, she implicitly recognized Alayo's ownership when, three years after the death of Alayo, she and Josephine executed the deed of extrajudicial partition and sale..."
• "It was at the time that the adjudication of ownership was made following Alayo's demise... that a constructive trust was deemed to have been created by operation of law under the provisions of Article 1456 of the Civil Code."

• Margaret Maxey vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45870, 11 May 1984 — Cited for the principle that the co-ownership rule for property of common-law spouses is repudiated when either or both suffer from a legal impediment to marry.
• Jeroniza vs. Jose, 89 SCRA 306 — Reiterated the rule that the property relations between common-law spouses with an impediment to marry are not governed by the rules on co-ownership.
• Tesoro vs. Court of Appeals, 54 SCRA 296 and Republic vs. Vda. de Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336 — Applied to distinguish "newly discovered evidence" from "forgotten evidence," which does not warrant a new trial.

• Article 160, Civil Code — Establishes the presumption that all property of the marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership.
• Article 1456, Civil Code — Provides for the creation of a constructive trust when property is acquired through mistake or fraud.
• Article 1144, Civil Code — Sets the ten-year prescriptive period for actions based upon a written contract or an obligation created by law.
• Article 1150, Civil Code — States that the prescriptive period begins from the day the cause of action accrues.
• Articles 147 and 148, Family Code — Cited as not deviating materially from the old rules on property relations of common-law spouses, but held inapplicable to the case to avoid impairing vested rights (per Article 256, Family Code).

Justices Florenz D. Regalado, Flerida Ruth P. Romero, and Jose A.R. Melo concurred with the opinion of Justice Vitug.

N/A. The decision was unanimous.