Balcodero v.

CA

Nature: This case involves the question of ownership over a piece of land acquired by a husband while living with a paramour and after having deserted his lawful wife and children. The property had been bought by the husband on installment basis prior to the effectivity of the Civil Code of 1950 but the final deed, as well as the questioned conveyance by him to his common law spouse, has ensued during the latter Code's regime. Now, of course, we have to likewise take note of the new Family Code which took effect on 03 August 1988. Facts: Alayo Bosing and Juliana Oday are spouses with three children but sometime in 1946, he left the conjugal home and started to livewith Josefa Rivera with whom he begot one child named Josephine Bosing (now Balcodero - petitioner).During their cohabitation, Bosing purchased a parcel of land and indicated that his civil status as married to Josefa (the commonlaw wife). In a letter, he authorized the real estate company (Magdalena Estate Inc.) to transfer the lot in the name of his "wife Josefa R.Bosing." The final deed of sale was executed by Magdalena Estate, Inc. A few days later, TCT was issued in the name of "JosefaR. Bosing, . . . married to Alayo Bosing, . . ."He even married said common law wife while his marriage with Oday was still subsisting. 3 years later, Alayo died, the legal wife and Josephine executed an extrajudicial partition on the lot bought that they allege was their conjugal property. A TCT was issued in favor of Josephine. Juliana (deceased Alayo's real widow) and her 3 legitimate children filed with the court a quo an action for reconveyance of the property. RTC ruled in their favor and it ordered that Josephine executed a deed of reconveyance of the property in question to the legal heirs of the deceased Alayo. CA affirmed. The common law wife here alleges that it was a conjugal property between her and Bosing. Issue: Whether the action for reconveyance of the property has prescribed NO Whether the action for reconveyance is based on implied or constructive trust YES Whether the property belongs to the petitioners - NO Held: Petition AFFIRMED

The property remained as belonging to the conjugal property of Bosing and Oday since all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. The provisions under Article 147 or 148 shall apply as the case may be. It cannot be contended that, simply because the property was titled in

the name of Josefa at Alayo's request, she should thereby be deemed to be its owner. The property unquestionably was acquired by Alayo. Alayo's letter merely authorized the company to have title to the property transferred to her name. More importantly, she implicitly recognized Alayo's ownership when after the death of Alayo, she and Josephine executed the deed of extrajudicial partition and sale in which she asserted a particular share. As regards the property relation between common-law spouses, the co-ownership rule had more than once been repudiated when either or both spouses suffered from an impediment to marry. The present provisions under Article 147 and Article 148 of theFamily Code did not much deviate from the old rules; in any case, its provisions cannot apply to this case without interdicting prior vested rights (Article 256, Family Code).

A constructive trust was deemed to have been created by operation of law at the time of Bosing's demise. As stated by Article 1456, if property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is by force of law considered to be a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. The period or prescription starts to run from the establishment of an implied trust.The applicable prescriptive period here, since it arises from law, is 10 years. It is counted from the time the transaction affecting the property is registered with the corresponding issuance of a new certificate of title. Here, only 6 years and 4 months have elapsed. The legal wife herein is not disqualified to the estate since there was no legal separation case instituted by the deceased despite her alleged marriage to another man. DISPOSITIVE: Decision appealed from in the instant petition for review on certiorari is AFFIRMED.

CHEESMAN V IAC 193 SCRA 93G.R. No. 74833 January 21, 1991 FACTS: This appeal concerns the attempt by an American citizen (petitioner Thomas Cheesman) toannul for lack of consent on his part the sale by his Filipino wife (Criselda) of a residential lot and building to Estelita Padilla December 4, 1970 Thomas Cheesman and Criselda Cheesman were married but have been separated since February 15, 1981 June 4, 1974 a Deed of Sale and Transfer of Possessory Rights was executed by Armando Altares, conveying a parcel of land in favor of Criselda Cheesman, married to Thomas Cheesman. Thomas,although aware of the deed, did not object to the transfer being made only to his wife. Tax declarations for the said property were issued in the name of Criselda Cheesman alone and she assumed exclusive management and administration of the property July 1, 1981 Criselda sold the property to Estelita Padilla without knowledge and consent of Thomas July 31, 1981 Thomas filed a suit for the annulment of the sale on the ground that the transaction had been executed without his knowledge and consent. Criselda filed an answer alleging that the property sold was paraphernal, having purchased the property from her own money; that Thomas, an American was disqualified to have any interest or right of ownership in the land and; that Estelita was a buyer in good faith During the trial, it was found out that the transfer of property took place during the existence of their marriage as it was acquired on June 4, 1974 June 24, 1982 RTC declared the sale executed by Criselda void ab initio and ordered the delivery of the property to Thomas as administrator of the conjugal property Thomas appealed to IAC where he assailed the granting of Estelitas petition for relief and resolution of matters not subject of said petition; in declaring valid the sale to Estelita without his knowledge andconsent. On January 7, 1986, IAC affirmed summary judgment decision ISSUE: Whether or not the wife can dispose of the property in question; Whether or not Cheesman, being an American citizen, can question the sale HELD: Section 14, Art. XIV of 1973 Constitution provides that: save in cases of hereditary succession, no private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

Thus, assuming that it was his intention that the lot in question be purchased by him and his wife, he acquiredno right whatsoever over the property by virtue of that purchase; and in attempting to acquire a right orinterest in land, he was knowingly violating the Constitution.As such, the sale to him was null and void. At any rate, Cheesman had and has NO CAPACITY TOQUESTION THE SUBSEQUENTSALE OF THE SAME PROPERTY BY HIS WIFE ON THETHEORY THAT IN SO DOING HEIS MERELY EXERCISING THE PREROGATIVE OF AHUSBAND IN RESPECT OFCONJUGAL PROPERTY. To sustain such a theory would permit indirect controversion of the Constitutional prohibition. If the property were to be declared conjugal, this would accord to the alien husband a not insubstantialinterest and right over land, as he would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition. This isa right that the Constitution does not permit him to have.Even if the wife did use conjugal funds to make the acquisition, his recovering and holding the propertycannot be warranted as it is against the constitution. Consequently, Estelita is a purchaser in good faithsince she knew that Thomas cannot intervene in the sale or disposition of the said property. DECISION: The Court AFFIRMED the appealed decision.