Juaniza vs. Jose

Article 144 of the Civil Code, creating a co-ownership of property acquired through work or industry by a man and woman living together as husband and wife, does not apply when either party is incapacitated to contract marriage. Where one party is legally married to another, the property belongs to the conjugal partnership of that party and the legal spouse, and the common-law partner cannot be deemed a co-owner. Furthermore, only the registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages arising from consequences incident to its operation, and a person who is not the registered owner cannot be held jointly and severally liable for such damages.

Eugenio Jose was the registered owner and operator of a passenger jeepney. At the time of the accident, Jose was legally married to Socorro Ramos but had been cohabiting with Rosalia Arroyo for sixteen years in a relationship akin to that of husband and wife. The case presents the question of whether a common-law spouse who is not the registered owner of a public service vehicle can be held liable for damages arising from its operation, and whether Article 144 of the Civil Code governs the property relations of parties in a common-law relationship where one is incapacitated to marry.

Eugenio Jose was the registered owner and operator of a passenger jeepney that figured in an accident of collision with a freight train of the Philippine National Railways on November 23, 1969, resulting in the death of seven passengers and physical injuries to five others. At the time of the accident, Jose was legally married to Socorro Ramos but had been cohabiting with Rosalia Arroyo for sixteen years in a relationship akin to that of husband and wife.

Civil cases for damages were filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna. The lower court rendered a decision ordering defendants Eugenio Jose and Rosalia Arroyo jointly and severally to pay plaintiff Victor Juaniza the sum of P1,600.00 plus legal interest in Civil Case No. SP-867, and to pay the respective heirs of the deceased Josefa P. Leus, Fausto Retrita, Nestor del Rosario Añonuevo, and Arceli de la Cueva the sum of P12,000.00 for the life of each of said deceased, with legal interest, in Civil Case No. SP-872.

The lower court based Arroyo's liability on Article 144 of the Civil Code, which provides that when a man and woman live together as husband and wife but 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. Arroyo filed a motion for reconsideration praying that the decision be reconsidered insofar as it condemns her to pay damages jointly and severally with her co-defendant, but the motion was denied. She then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court, the question raised being purely legal.

N/A — The decision does not recount the arguments of the plaintiffs-appellees.

• Error in Applying Article 144: Rosalia Arroyo assigned as the lone error that the lower court erred in holding her liable for damages resulting from the death and physical injuries suffered by the passengers of the jeepney registered in the name of Eugenio Jose, on the erroneous theory that Jose and Arroyo, having lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, are co-owners of said jeepney.

• Applicability of Article 144: Whether Article 144 of the Civil Code is applicable in a case where one of the parties in a common-law relationship is incapacitated to marry.
• Liability of Non-Registered Owner: Whether Rosalia Arroyo, who is not a registered owner of the jeepney, can be held jointly and severally liable for damages with the registered owner of the same.

• Applicability of Article 144: No. Article 144 of the Civil Code does not apply where one of the parties in a common-law relationship is incapacitated to contract marriage. Since Eugenio Jose was legally married to Socorro Ramos, there was an impediment for him to contract marriage with Rosalia Arroyo, and Arroyo could not be a co-owner of the jeepney.
• Liability of Non-Registered Owner: No. Rosalia Arroyo, not being the registered owner of the jeepney, cannot be held liable for damages caused by its operation. It is settled jurisprudence that only the registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages arising from consequences incident to its operation.

• Applicability of Article 144: The Court noted that it has been consistently ruled that the co-ownership contemplated in Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the man and the woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage, citing Camporedondo vs. Aznar, Osmeña vs. Rodriguez, and Malajacan vs. Rubi. Since Eugenio Jose was legally married to Socorro Ramos, there was an impediment for him to contract marriage with Rosalia Arroyo. Under Article 144, Arroyo could not be a co-owner of the jeepney. The jeepney belonged to the conjugal partnership of Jose and his legal wife. Therefore, there was no basis for the liability of Arroyo for damages arising from the death of, and physical injuries suffered by, the passengers of the jeepney which figured in the collision.

• Liability of Non-Registered Owner: The Court held that Rosalia Arroyo, who is not the registered owner of the jeepney, cannot be liable for damages caused by its operation. It is settled in jurisprudence that only the registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages that may arise from consequences incident to its operation, or may be caused to any of the passengers therein, citing De Peralta vs. Mangusang, Tamayo vs. Aquino, Roque vs. Malibay Transit, and Montoya vs. Ignacio.

• Co-ownership under Article 144 of the Civil Code — The co-ownership contemplated in Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the man and the woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. Where one party is legally married to another, there is an impediment to contract marriage, and the common-law partner cannot be deemed a co-owner of property acquired during the cohabitation; such property belongs to the conjugal partnership of the married party and the legal spouse.

• Liability of Registered Owner of Public Service Vehicle — Only the registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages that may arise from consequences incident to its operation, or that may be caused to any of the passengers therein. A person who is not the registered owner of the vehicle cannot be held jointly and severally liable for such damages.

• "It has been consistently ruled by this Court that the co-ownership contemplated in Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the man and the woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage." — This passage states the controlling doctrine on the applicability of Article 144, requiring that both parties in a common-law relationship must be free from any impediment to marry for the co-ownership rule to apply.

• "Since Eugenio Jose is legally married to Socorro Ramos, there is an impediment for him to contract marriage with Rosalia Arroyo. Under the aforecited provision of the Civil Code, Arroyo cannot be a co-owner of the jeepney." — This passage applies the doctrine to the facts, establishing that the jeepney belonged to the conjugal partnership of Jose and his legal wife, not to the common-law partnership.

• "It is settled in our jurisprudence that only the registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages that may arise from consequences incident to its operation, or maybe caused to any of the passengers therein." — This passage articulates the rule on liability for damages arising from the operation of public service vehicles, limiting such liability to the registered owner.

• Camporedondo vs. Aznar, L-11483, February 4, 1958, 102 Phil. 1055, 1068 — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that co-ownership under Article 144 requires that the parties not be incapacitated to contract marriage.
• Osmeña vs. Rodriguez, 54 OG 5526 — Cited as precedent for the same rule on the requisites of co-ownership under Article 144.
• Malajacan vs. Rubi, 42 OG 5576 — Cited as precedent for the same rule on the requisites of co-ownership under Article 144.
• De Peralta vs. Mangusang, L-18110, July 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 598 — Cited as settled jurisprudence for the rule that only the registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages arising from its operation.
• Tamayo vs. Aquino, L-12634 and L-12720, May 29, 1959 — Cited as precedent for the same rule on liability of the registered owner of a public service vehicle.
• Roque vs. Malibay Transit, L-8561, November 18, 1955 — Cited as precedent for the same rule on liability of the registered owner of a public service vehicle.
• Montoya vs. Ignacio, L-5868, December 29, 1953 — Cited as precedent for the same rule on liability of the registered owner of a public service vehicle.

• Article 144, Civil Code — Provides that when a man and 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. The Court held this provision inapplicable where one of the parties is legally married to another and is therefore incapacitated to contract marriage.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the case text.