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, began a relationship in 1974. Throughout his employment, Benasa regularly remitted substantial funds to Mahor, alleging these were used to acquire properties, including a house in Quezon City where he would stay during his returns to the Philippines. Upon retirement in 1999, their relationship soured. Benasa filed a petition for accounting, inventory, and reconveyance of properties, claiming co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs property relations of couples in a void marriage or cohabitation without a marriage. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition. They ruled he failed to prove cohabitation, noting his prolonged absences due to seafaring work, and held the subject properties were presumed conjugal of the Mahor spouses.

ISSUE

Whether Benasa sufficiently established a state of cohabitation with Mahor to invoke Article 148 of the Family Code and claim co-ownership over properties acquired through his financial contributions.

RULING

Yes. The ponencia reversed the lower courts, a decision with which Justice Leonen concurred. The legal logic centers on the nature of cohabitation under Article 148. Cohabitation is determined not by a specific duration or constant physical presence but by the mutual intention to live together as husband and wife, manifested through consistent actions and the nature of the relationship. The evidence—including decades of love letters, intimate photographs (some inscribed by Mahor referring to “our new house”), and substantial financial remittances with Mahor named as an alternative party in passbooks—collectively proves a shared life and economic partnership. Benasa’s overseas work necessitated physical absence but did not negate the cohabitative intent, as he maintained the Fairview residence as his home base. Consequently, Article 148 applies, establishing a regime of co-ownership where properties acquired through joint efforts are owned in common in proportion to actual contributions. Benasa’s remittances constitute his contribution, granting him rights to seek accounting and reconveyance of his proportionate share, notwithstanding the properties’ registration under Mahor’s name. The presumption of conjugal ownership between Mahor and her legal spouse was correctly overturned by the evidence of Benasa’s direct and substantial contributions intended for their common fund.