G.R. No. 253450 , January 22, 2024
LANI NAYVE-PUA, PETITIONER, VS. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Lani Nayve-Pua and Stephen Pua began cohabiting in December 1975 and had four children between 1976 and 1982. In March 1978, they bought a property in Quezon City, with the Transfer Certificate of Title registered solely under “STEPHEN PUA, of legal age, Filipino, single.” Lani and Stephen married in July 1983. In 2004, Lani discovered the property had been mortgaged to and foreclosed by respondent Union Bank of the Philippines by Spouses Cromwell and Catherine Uy, who used a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly signed by both Lani and Stephen. Lani denied consenting to or signing the SPA, alleging forgery. She filed a complaint to annul the real estate mortgage and foreclosure, claiming the property was acquired through their joint efforts during cohabitation and was their family home. Union Bank argued the property was Stephen’s exclusive property, acquired before marriage under the conjugal partnership of gains regime of the Civil Code, making Lani’s consent unnecessary for the mortgage. The Regional Trial Court dismissed Lani’s complaint, ruling Stephen was the exclusive owner. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Lani failed to prove she and Stephen lived exclusively as husband and wife without legal impediment during cohabitation or that she made an actual contribution to acquire the property.

ISSUE

Whether the mortgage and foreclosure in favor of Union Bank should be annulled, intertwined with whether Lani’s consent to the mortgage is necessary for its validity.

RULING

The Petition is denied. The mortgage and foreclosure are valid, and Lani’s consent was not necessary. The Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts. The property was acquired by Stephen before his marriage to Lani in 1983, as evidenced by the title in his name alone, stating he was “single.” Under the Civil Code, which governs their marriage, the property regime is conjugal partnership of gains, and properties acquired before marriage remain the exclusive property of the acquiring spouse. Lani failed to prove the property fell under Article 147 of the Family Code (governing co-ownership for properties acquired through joint efforts of unmarried couples), as she did not substantiate that they lived exclusively as husband and wife without legal impediment or that she made an actual contribution to the property’s acquisition. The presumption under Article 147 is prima facie and cannot prevail over the Torrens title. Furthermore, Lani did not sufficiently prove the property was constituted as a family home requiring spousal consent for encumbrance. Union Bank, as a mortgagee, exercised due diligence by inspecting the property and relying on the notarized SPA and title. Therefore, the mortgage executed by Stephen via the SPA was valid, and Lani had no cause of action for annulment.