G.R. No. L-4257

SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL., defendants-appellants.

March 31, 1908

FACTS: On January 2, 1896, Rosa Gongon sold seventeen parcels of land to Simon Mosesgeld Santiago (plaintiff-appellee) with a right of repurchase. The following day, Santiago leased the same lands back to Rosa Gongon for two years at a rental of P750 per agricultural year, expiring on January 4, 1898.

Rosa Gongon died on May 14, 1897, before the lease expired. After her death, her heirs, Rufino Quimson et al. (defendants-appellants), entered into possession of the property and continued to possess it. Santiago requested them to deliver the property and pay the rental due for the last year (1897-1898), which the defendants failed to do.

Santiago filed a complaint for restitution of possession and payment of rentals and damages. The defendants argued that the lands belonged to the conjugal partnership of their parents, Francisco Quimson and Rosa Gongon, and therefore, Rosa Gongon could not have validly sold them without prior liquidation of the partnership. They presented an “acto de conciliacion” which stated “all the property had and acquired” during the marriage was conjugal property.

The trial court found that the lands originally belonged to Rosa Gongon and that she only had the right of a simple lessee at the time of her death, thus she could not transmit ownership to her heirs. It ordered the defendants to restore possession and pay the P750 rental for 1898, plus interest. The defendants appealed.

One defendant, Gertrudis Quimson, stated in her answer that she had no interest in the property, had already received her share of inheritance in cash from her mother, and had never possessed any of the parcels. This was not disproven by the plaintiff.

ISSUE: 1. Whether the seventeen parcels of land sold by Rosa Gongon to Simon Mosesgeld Santiago were conjugal partnership property of Rosa Gongon and her deceased husband, Francisco Quimson, thereby rendering the sale null and void.
2. Whether defendant Gertrudis Quimson should be held liable for the restitution of possession and payment of rentals.

RULING: 1. No, the lands were not proven to be conjugal partnership property. The Supreme Court found that while the “acto de conciliacion” generally stated that all property acquired during the marriage was conjugal, there was no specific evidence that the lands in controversy formed part of that conjugal property. The attached statement of property in the “acto de conciliacion” only listed “Land held under a mortgage title,” without indicating ownership by the spouses. The defendants failed to prove that the lands sued for were acquired during the marriage. Conversely, the deed of sale to Santiago stated that Rosa Gongon acquired the lands by private purchase and had been in possession “as owner” for many years, as proven in possessory proceedings. Thus, the lower court did not err in concluding that the lands were not conjugal property.

2. No, Gertrudis Quimson should not be held liable. The Court noted that Gertrudis Quimson’s claim that she had no interest, had received her inheritance, and had never possessed the lands was not disproven by the plaintiff. Therefore, she cannot be justly ordered to make restitution of possession.

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as to Gertrudis Quimson, reversing the appealed judgment in her regard. The judgment was affirmed as to the other defendants, ordering them to make restitution of the seventeen parcels of land to Simon Mosesgeld Santiago and to pay P750 rental for the agricultural year 1898, with legal interest, plus costs.