Ventura vs. Abuda

In cohabitation between parties incapacitated to marry each other, properties acquired during the union are governed by Article 148 of the Family Code applied retroactively, and co-ownership arises only upon proof of actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry, with no presumption of equal shares in the absence of proof of contribution; descriptive phrases regarding civil status in certificates of title do not operate to create co-ownership.

Socorro Torres entered into a marriage with Esteban Abletes on 9 June 1980, notwithstanding her prior subsisting marriage to Crispin Roxas solemnized on 18 April 1952. Roxas remained alive throughout Torres' marriage to Abletes. Abletes, whose prior marriage had been dissolved by his wife's death in 1960, had a daughter named Evangeline Abuda, while Torres had a son who fathered Edilberto Ventura Jr. Abletes acquired a parcel of land in Vitas, Tondo in 1968, with the remaining portion purchased by Evangeline on his behalf in 1970, though the Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in December 1980 to "Esteban Abletes, of legal age, Filipino, married to Socorro Torres." Abletes and Evangeline also operated business establishments at Delpan Street, Tondo beginning in 1978. In September 1997, while suffering from colon cancer, Abletes sold both the Vitas and Delpan properties to Evangeline and her husband Paulino. Abletes died on 11 September 1997, followed by Torres' death on 31 July 1999.

• The Void Marriage: Socorro Torres married Esteban Abletes on 9 June 1980. At that time, Torres had an existing marriage to Crispin Roxas solemnized on 18 April 1952, which had not been annulled and which remained subsisting as Roxas was still alive. Abletes' previous marriage had been dissolved by his wife's death in 1960.
• The Vitas Property: Abletes purchased a portion of a lot located at 2492 State Alley, Bonifacio Street, Vitas, Tondo, Manila sometime in 1968. Evangeline Abuda purchased the remaining portion on her father's behalf in 1970. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 141782 was issued on 11 December 1980 in the name of "Esteban Abletes, of legal age, Filipino, married to Socorro Torres."
• The Delpan Property: Beginning in 1978, Abletes and Evangeline operated small business establishments located at 903 and 905 Delpan Street, Tondo, Manila. Evangeline operated "Vangie's Canvas Store" at 905 Delpan Street, evidenced by a Certificate of Registration of Business Name issued on 9 November 1998. When the BLISS project was constructed in 1980, the properties became known as Units D-9 and D-10.
• The Sale: In 1993, Abletes was diagnosed with colon cancer. On 6 September 1997, he sold the Vitas and Delpan properties to Evangeline and her husband Paulino. Evangeline had continued paying amortizations on the Delpan properties, which together with Php 200,000.00 advance payment requested by Abletes, were considered part of the purchase price. She also gave Php 50,000.00 for the Vitas property and shouldered her father's medical expenses.
• Deaths and Subsequent Action: Abletes died on 11 September 1997, and Torres died on 31 July 1999. In 2000, Leonora Urquila (Edilberto Ventura Jr.'s mother) discovered the sale. Edilberto, represented by Leonora, filed a Petition for Annulment of Deeds of Sale before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, alleging that Abletes' signature on the deeds was forged and the sale was fraudulent.
• Evidence of Contribution: During trial, Edilberto offered the testimony of Conchita Ventura (Socorro's daughter-in-law), who initially claimed that Crispin Roxas had been missing for 35 years but later executed an Affidavit of Retraction. Edilberto failed to present documentation evidencing Socorro's monetary contributions to the acquisition of either property. Evangeline presented receipts evidencing payments of amortizations totaling Php 195,259.52 for Unit D-9 and Php 188,596.09 for Unit D-10.

• Forgery and Fraud: Petitioner alleged that the sale of the Vitas and Delpan properties was fraudulent because Esteban Abletes' signature on the deeds of sale was forged.
• Co-ownership by Prescription: Petitioner argued that the phrase "married to Socorro Torres" in the certificate of title covering the Vitas property indicated that the parcel was co-owned by Abletes and Torres, as the title was issued several months after their marriage.
• Joint Contribution Presumption: Petitioner maintained that because Evangeline shouldered some of the amortizations for the Delpan property, Abletes' actual contribution was not sufficiently proven, thus the law should presume that Abletes and Torres jointly contributed to its acquisition.
• Applicability of Contribution Requirement: Petitioner admitted that in unions between incapacitated persons, ownership is based on actual contribution, citing Borromeo v. Descallar, but argued that Torres had contributed to the properties.

• Void Marriage: Respondent countered that because Torres had a prior subsisting marriage to Crispin Roxas, her subsequent marriage to Abletes was null and void, preventing Torres and her heirs from claiming any right or interest over properties purchased by Abletes.
• Exclusive Ownership: Respondent argued that the Vitas and Delpan properties were acquired prior to the marriage of Abletes and Torres, and that Torres contributed no funds to their acquisition. Evangeline purchased portions of the Vitas property on her father's behalf in 1970, and the Delpan properties were acquired through Abletes' business operations beginning in 1978.
• Payment by Third Party: Respondent maintained that Evangeline's payment of amortizations on the Delpan properties was made on behalf of her father, constituting valid payment under Article 1238 of the Civil Code, and did not create co-ownership rights for Torres.

• Void Marriage: Whether the marriage between Socorro Torres and Esteban Abletes was void from the beginning due to Torres' prior subsisting marriage.
• Applicable Law: Whether Article 148 of the Family Code or Article 144 of the Civil Code governs the property relations of the parties, and whether Article 148 applies retroactively.
• Co-ownership: Whether Torres co-owned the Vitas and Delpan properties with Abletes.
• Burden of Proof: Whether petitioner sufficiently proved Torres' actual contribution to the acquisition of the properties.

• Void Marriage: The marriage between Torres and Abletes was void from the beginning under Article 83 of the Civil Code, which renders illegal and void any marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse unless specific conditions regarding absence or presumption of death are met. No judicial decree of nullity was necessary to establish this status.
• Applicable Law: Article 148 of the Family Code governs the property relations of parties who cohabit while incapacitated to marry each other, and this provision applies even if the cohabitation or acquisition of property occurred before the effectivity of the Family Code, following Saguid v. Court of Appeals.
• Co-ownership of Vitas Property: Torres did not co-own the Vitas property. The phrase "married to Socorro Torres" in the certificate of title was merely descriptive of Abletes' civil status and did not indicate co-ownership. Registration does not vest title; the property was acquired by Abletes in 1968, prior to the 1980 marriage, through his exclusive funds.
• Co-ownership of Delpan Property: Torres did not co-own the Delpan property. The property was acquired prior to the marriage through Abletes' business operations. Evangeline's payment of amortizations was made on behalf of her father pursuant to Article 1238 of the Civil Code, and did not create co-ownership rights for Torres.
• Burden of Proof: Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving Torres' actual contribution to the acquisition of either property. Mere allegations without documentary evidence were insufficient to establish co-ownership under Article 148.

• Article 148 Family Code Retroactivity — Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs property relations between cohabiting parties who are incapacitated to marry each other, applies retroactively to cohabitation and property acquisitions occurring before the effectivity of the Family Code. Under this provision, only properties acquired by both parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. The presumption of equal shares applies only in the absence of proof to the contrary regarding the extent of contributions, not to the existence of contributions themselves.
• Descriptive Civil Status in Certificates of Title — The phrase "married to [name]" appearing in a certificate of title is merely descriptive of the registered owner's civil status at the time of registration and does not operate to create co-ownership or convey title to the spouse named.
• Registration as Confirmatory, Not Constitutive — Registration under the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring ownership but merely confirms existing title and provides notice to third persons. The date of issuance of a certificate of title does not determine the date of acquisition of the property.
• Payment by Third Persons — Under Article 1238 of the Civil Code, payment made by a third person who does not intend to be reimbursed by the debtor is deemed a donation requiring the debtor's consent, but the payment is valid as to the creditor who has accepted it. Such payment by a child on behalf of a parent does not create ownership rights in the payer against the parent's estate or heirs.

• "It is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition of property in order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply." — Articulates the burden of proof required under Article 148 of the Family Code for cohabiting parties incapacitated to marry.
• "The phrase 'married to Socorro Torres' is merely descriptive of his civil status, and does not show that Socorro co-owned the property." — Establishes that descriptive phrases in certificates of title regarding marital status do not create property rights in the spouse named.
• "Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. It is only a means of confirming the fact of its existence with notice to the world at large. Certificates of title are not a source of right." — Reaffirms the principle that registration does not vest ownership but merely confirms it.
• "Payment made by a third person who does not intend to be reimbursed by the debtor is deemed to be a donation, which requires the debtor's consent. But the payment is in any case valid as to the creditor who has accepted it." — Cites Article 1238 of the Civil Code regarding payments made by third parties on behalf of debtors.

• Niñal v. Badayog, 384 Phil. 661 (2000) — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the nullity of a void marriage under the Civil Code; the invalidity can be maintained in any proceeding where the fact of marriage is material.
• Saguid v. Court of Appeals, 451 Phil. 825 (2003) — Followed for the rule that Article 148 of the Family Code applies even if the cohabitation or acquisition of property occurred before the effectivity of the Family Code.
• Borromeo v. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, 24 February 2009, 580 SCRA 175 — Cited for the principle that in unions between incapacitated parties, each partner must prove actual contribution to acquire property; presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply.
• Go-Bangayan v. Bangayan, G.R. No. 201061, 3 July 2013, citing Acre v. Yuttikki, 560 Phil. 495 (2007) — Cited for the rule that descriptive phrases regarding civil status in certificates of title do not create co-ownership.

• Article 83, Civil Code — Provides that any marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is illegal and void from its performance unless specific conditions regarding absence or presumption of death are met.
• Article 144, Civil Code — Governs property acquired by a man and woman living together as husband and wife without valid marriage, establishing rules on co-ownership.
• Article 485, Civil Code — Presumes equal shares for co-owners unless the contrary is proved.
• Article 1238, Civil Code — Governs payment by a third person who does not intend to be reimbursed, deeming it a donation requiring debtor's consent but valid as to the creditor.
• Article 148, Family Code — Provides that in cases of cohabitation where parties are incapacitated to marry each other, only properties acquired through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned in common in proportion to respective contributions.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe