Solely his
Lan and Steph began living together as common law spouses in 1975. During their cohabitation, they bought a property in Quezon City.
Lan claimed that they acquired the property through their joint efforts. The title, however, was registered under the name of Steph, “of legal age, Filipino, single.”
In July 1983, Lan and Steph got married. The house constructed on the property allegedly became their home.
In 2004, Lan learned that the property was mortgaged to and foreclosed by the bank, which notified them that the period to redeem the property was set to expire.
Upon verification, Lan discovered that Spouses Ye mortgaged their home in favor of the bank. Spouses Ye used it as collateral for their loan by way of credit accommodation. This arrangement happened because Crom Ye is the son of Steph’s brother, Jorge.
In due course, the bank foreclosed the mortgage. The property was sold at a public auction.
Later, Lan learned that in executing the loan agreement and mortgage, Spouses Ye submitted a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) indicating that Lan and Steph granted them the authority to mortgage the property.
However, Lan denied affixing her name and signature on the SPA, claiming forgery. She maintained that she did not consent to the mortgage.
When questioned, the bank countered that since Lan and Steph were married in 1983, their property regime under the Civil Code was conjugal partnership of gains.
Thus, the property remained as Steph’s exclusive property because it was acquired before their marriage, and the title covering it indicates that the registered owner is “STEPH, of legal age, Filipino, single.” Consequently, Lan has no cause of action against it.
Q: Is the property conjugal?
A: No, it is not conjugal. The mortgaged property was acquired in 1978, under the name of “STEPH, of legal age, Filipino, single,” when Lan and Steph were cohabiting without the benefit of marriage.
When Lan and Steph married on July 1983, the Civil Code provides that their property relations shall be governed by the rules on conjugal partnership of gains, absent any proof showing that the spouses entered into a marriage settlement.
Thus, properties owned prior to the marriage remains as the exclusive property of the spouse concerned.
Q: When is a property presumed conjugal?
A: A property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be conjugal, and it is unnecessary to prove that the money used to purchase a property came from the conjugal fund.
What must be established is that the property was acquired during the marriage. This presumption may only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
Notably, the presumption will still apply even if the property is under the name of only one spouse. Hence, when the property is acquired during the marriage, the burden of proof is upon the spouse claiming the property’s exclusivity to establish it.
Q: Can the property be considered as co-owned by virtue of Art. 147 of the Family Code?
A: No. Even if one applies Article 147 of the Family Code, the presumption of co-ownership is only prima facie, and shall only apply if there is no proof to the contrary.
As here, Lan cannot anchor her claim of co-ownership solely on Article 147’s prima facie presumption because: (1) the title to the subject property, which was registered under Torrens system, is under Steph’s name alone; and (2) the Conditional Contract of Sale and Deed of Absolute Sale were executed between the seller and “STEPH, of legal age, single, resident of xxxx”.
These are eloquent, self-speaking documentary evidence that the mortgaged property is Steph’s exclusive, separate property.
(Source: Pua vs. Union Bank, G.R. No. 253450, January 22, 2024 [J. Lopez, M., Second Division])
The author is the Dean, College of Law at Lyceum of the Philippines University; Member, Civil Law Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy
