G.R. No. 236659, August 31, 2022
Bernard B. Benasa, Petitioner, vs. Presentacion R. Mahor, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Bernard Benasa, a seafarer, and respondent Presentacion Mahor, who was married to another man, engaged in an adulterous relationship beginning in 1974. During their cohabitation, Benasa regularly remitted a substantial portion of his salaries and benefits to Mahor. Using these funds, Mahor purchased several real properties, which were registered solely in her name. Upon his retirement in 1999, Benasa demanded an accounting and reconveyance of the properties, claiming they were acquired through his financial contributions. When Mahor refused and they separated, Benasa filed a Petition for Accounting, Inventory, and Reconveyance of Real Properties with Damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The RTC dismissed the petition, finding Benasa’s evidence insufficient to prove a co-ownership under Articles 147 or 148 of the Family Code, which govern property relations of couples in void marriages or illicit unions. The court emphasized that the properties were registered under Mahor’s name, giving rise to a presumption of ownership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, ruling that Benasa failed to substantiate his claim of co-ownership with clear and convincing evidence, and that his action had already prescribed.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Benasa is entitled to an accounting, inventory, and reconveyance of the properties acquired during his cohabitation with Mahor, based on his claim of co-ownership arising from his financial contributions.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the lower courts. The legal logic proceeds from the principle that while no co-ownership under the Family Code arises from an adulterous relationship, the claimant may still recover his or her actual contributions if proven. The Court clarified that Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code do not apply to relationships where one party is legally married to another, as was the case with Mahor. Consequently, the regime of co-ownership established by these provisions cannot be invoked.
However, the Court held that this does not preclude Benasa from recovering the money or properties he contributed under the principles of constructive trust, solutio indebiti, or unjust enrichment. A party who can prove they contributed money to the acquisition of property registered in another’s name may seek reimbursement or reconveyance. The Court found Benasa’s evidence—including remittance slips, passbooks, photographs, and love letters where Mahor acknowledged the source of funds—sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the properties were acquired using his remittances. This created an implied trust in his favor. The case was remanded to the RTC to determine the exact extent of his contributions and for a proper accounting. The Court also awarded damages due to Mahor’s unjustified refusal to account for the funds and properties, which caused Benasa moral injury.