GR 169698; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 169698 ; November 29, 2006
Lupo Atienza, Petitioner, vs. Yolanda De Castro, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Lupo Atienza, a married man, and respondent Yolanda De Castro began a cohabitation in 1983. During this union, a property in Bel-Air, Makati, was acquired in 1987 and registered solely in De Castro’s name. After their separation, Atienza filed a complaint for judicial partition, alleging the property was co-owned as it was purchased during their cohabitation using his exclusive funds, with the title placed in De Castro’s name without his knowledge but with his acquiescence at the time.
De Castro countered that she acquired the property using her own exclusive funds from her savings and earnings as a businesswoman and accountant. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Atienza, declaring the property co-owned and ordering its partition. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring De Castro the exclusive owner, finding that Atienza failed to substantiate his claim of providing the purchase money.
ISSUE
Whether the subject property is co-owned by the parties pursuant to the property regime governing their cohabitation.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The property regime governing the parties is Article 148 of the Family Code, which applies to unions where the parties are not legally capacitated to marry each other, as in this case where Atienza was validly married to another. Under Article 148, only properties acquired through the actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are owned in common, in proportion to their respective contributions. Proof of actual contribution is required; there is no presumption of equal sharing.
The Court held that De Castro successfully proved through documentary evidence that she purchased the property with her own funds. Atienza, on the other hand, failed to discharge his burden of proving his alleged financial contribution. His mere allegation, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, was insufficient to establish a joint contribution that would give rise to a co-ownership under Article 148. Consequently, the property was correctly adjudged as the exclusive property of respondent Yolanda De Castro.