G.R. No. L-27933 December 24, 1968
DIVERSIFIED CREDIT CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE ROSADO and LUZ JAYME ROSADO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Diversified Credit Corporation filed an action in the Municipal Court of Bacolod City to compel spouses Felipe Rosado and Luz Jayme Rosado to vacate and restore possession of a parcel of land (Lot 62-B) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27083 in the plaintiff’s name. The defendants claimed the lot was conjugal property. The Municipal Court ordered defendants to vacate, pay monthly rental, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On appeal, the Court of First Instance decided based on a stipulation of facts: (1) Lot 62-B belonged to thirteen co-owners, including defendant Luz Jayme Rosado, who owned a 1/13 pro-indiviso share; (2) On May 11, 1964, Luz Jayme Rosado and her co-owners signed a Deed of Sale (Exh. “A”) selling the property to the plaintiff; (3) Defendant Felipe Rosado had built a house on the lot in 1957 without the property having been previously partitioned among the co-owners; (4) Title was transferred to the plaintiff upon registration of the Deed of Sale in June 1964; (5) Demand to vacate was made on October 19, 1964, but defendants refused, with Felipe Rosado alleging he built a conjugal house worth P8,000, making the lot subject to Article 158 of the Civil Code, and that his wife received only P2,400 from the sale; (6) The portion occupied would earn a monthly rental of P50; (7) Felipe Rosado did not give his conformity to the Deed of Sale; (8) On October 31, 1964, Felipe Rosado requested in writing (Exh. “C”) a six-month period to vacate; (9) The plaintiff did not answer or accept the offer and filed the complaint on November 25, 1964. The Court of First Instance rejected the claim that the land became conjugal property under Article 158, held defendants in estoppel due to Exhibit C, and affirmed the Municipal Court’s decision. Felipe Rosado appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as it involved only questions of law.

ISSUE

Whether the construction of a house by the conjugal partnership on a lot owned in common by the wife and others converted the wife’s undivided share into conjugal property under Article 158 of the Civil Code, thereby rendering the sale of that share by the wife alone void.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that under the law of co-ownership, no individual co-owner can claim title to any definite portion of the property until partition. Prior to partition, a co-owner only has an ideal, abstract, or proportionate undivided share in the entire property. Since the wife’s 1/13 share was never physically determined or partitioned, it cannot be validly claimed that the house was built on land belonging exclusively to her. Therefore, Article 158 of the Civil Code, which pertains to buildings constructed on land belonging to one of the spouses, does not apply. The claim of conversion of the wife’s share from paraphernal to conjugal property lacks legal and factual basis. Consequently, the sale by the wife of her undivided share was valid, and the appellant husband, who built the house knowing the land did not belong exclusively to his wife, was not a builder in good faith and was not entitled to reimbursement. The Court also found no error in the award of attorneys’ fees. Costs were imposed against appellant Felipe Rosado.