G.R. No. L-5302 March 11, 1953
GERTRUDO FLORES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ARSENIO ESCUDERO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In 1877, Simeona de Mesa married Regino Beltran. They had three children: Mariano, Eulalio, and Romualda Beltran. Regino left Simeona in 1902, lived separately, and died on March 20, 1925. On July 13, 1912, during Regino’s lifetime but while they were living apart, Simeona purchased a parcel of land in San Pablo City for P2,150. She and sometimes her son Mariano managed the property. On October 11, 1939, Simeona sold the land to the defendants, spouses Arsenio Escudero and Rosario Adap, for P2,000. Mariano Beltran signed the deed, conveying his rights. Romualda Beltran (married to Ponciano Flores and mother of the nine plaintiffs) died on July 20, 1941. Simeona died in 1943. On May 1, 1949, Ponciano Flores, on behalf of his children (plaintiffs), attempted to repurchase one-sixth (1/6) of the parcel, purportedly corresponding to their mother Romualda’s inheritance share from her father Regino’s half of the conjugal property. The attempt failed, leading to this action for recovery. In 1949, the parcel had a market value of P15,000 and a monthly rental value of P125.

ISSUE

Whether the land purchased by Simeona in 1912 during her marriage but while living separately from her husband Regino is conjugal partnership property.

RULING

Yes, the land is conjugal property. The law presumes all property acquired during marriage, regardless of whether the spouses are living together, to be conjugal. The purchase was made by Simeona, but there was no proof that she used her own exclusive funds for the acquisition. In the absence of such proof, the law presumes the purchase money came from conjugal funds. Therefore, the lot is conjugal property, with Regino entitled to a one-half (1/2) share. Upon his intestate death, his half was inherited by his three children, with Romualda receiving one-third of that half, or one-sixth (1/6) of the whole parcel. This one-sixth share passed to her children, the plaintiffs. The trial court’s declaration that the sale of Romualda’s one-sixth share was null and void was affirmed. The defendants were ordered to execute the necessary instrument to transfer that portion to the plaintiffs or pay its value. Regarding rentals, the plaintiffs are entitled to one-sixth of the rentals from October 11, 1939. The Court calculated the total rental for the ten-year period up to October 11, 1949, to be P1,308.30 for the plaintiffs’ share, and thereafter, one-sixth of P125 monthly until delivery or payment. The action has not prescribed, as it is for recovery of real property, with a prescriptive period of ten years. The appealed decision was affirmed with the modification on the rental computation.