PRESUMPTION THAT IMPROVEMENT BELONGS TO THE SPOUSE WHO OWNS THE

EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
Proof is needful of the time of the making or construction of the improvements and the source of the
funds used therefor, in order to determine the character of the improvements as belonging to the
conjugal partnership or to one spouse separately. Where property is registered in the name of one
spouse only and there is no showing of when precisely the property was acquired, the presumption is
that it belongs exclusively to said spouse. (Villanueva v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
74577, December 4, 1990)

x—————x

PRESUMPTION THAT IMPROVEMENT BELONGS TO THE SPOUSE WHO OWNS THE

EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

Villanueva v. Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 74577, December 4, 1990
Narvasa, J.

FACTS:
This is a petition for review from the judgment of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, affirmed the
judgment of the Regional Trial Court dismissing the complaint of Consolacion Villanueva and
Raymundo Aranas.

Modesto Aranas, husband of Victoria Comorro, inherited a land (Lot 13-C) from his father. He died on
April 20, 1973 and her wife on July 16, 1971, with no children. Dorothea and Teodoro, Modesto’s
illegitimate children, borrowed P18,000 from Jesus Bernas, mortgaging as collateral Lot 13-C. The
Loan Agreement with Real Estate Mortgage was signed by Raymundo Aranas, a relative, as a
witness. Dorothea and Teodoro failed to pay the loan resulting to extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage
and thereafter Bernas acquired the land as the highest bidder. Bernas consolidated his ownership over
Lot 13-C after the mortgagors failed to redeem the same. A month after consolidation, Consolacion
and Raymundo Aranas filed a complaint against Jesus and Remedios Bernas and prayed that they be
declared co-owners of the land, on the ground of alleged discovery of Victoria Comorro’s will allegedly
bequeathing all of her shares to the conjugal partnership to them. The RTC dismissed the complaint
and declared Jesus and Remedios Bernas as the legal owners of the disputed property.

ISSUE:
Did Consolacion acquire any right over the improvements on Lot 13-C by virtue of Victoria Camorro’s
last will and testament?

HELD:
No, Consolacion did not acquire any right over the improvements. The Civil Code says that
improvements, "whether for utility or adornment, made on the separate property of the spouses
through advancements from the partnership or through the industry of either the husband or the wife,
belong to the conjugal partnership," and buildings "constructed, at the expense of the partnership,
during the marriage on land belonging to one of the 'spouses, also pertain to the partnership, but the
value of the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the same." Proof, therefore, is needful
of the time of the making or construction of the improvements and the source of the funds used
therefor, in order to determine the character of the improvements as belonging to the conjugal
partnership or to one spouse separately. No such proof was presented or proferred by Consolacion
Villanueva or any one else. What is certain is that the land on which the improvements stand was the
exclusive property of Modesto Aranas and that where, as here, property is registered in the name of
one spouse only and there is no showing of when precisely the property was acquired, the
presumption is that it belongs exclusively to said spouse. It is not therefore possible to declare the
improvements to be conjugal in character. Hence, Victoria Camorro could not have bequeathed to
Consolacion the improvements, which are conjugal in character.