Diancin v. CA & Decena (2000)

DIANCIN v. CA and DECENA

GR No. 119991

November 20, 2000

Ponente: Justice Pardo

*Petition for review on Certiorari of a decision of the CA

FACTS

·       Dec. 30, 1933 – Tiburcio Estampador, Sr. and Matilde Gulmatico were married in Iloilo; had the following children: Norma, Vevencia, Raul, Aurora, Luz and Fe (all surnamed Estampador, herein respondents).

·       April 9, 1940 – Matilde was granted Ordinary Fishpond Permit which covered an area of 10.47 hectares situated in Barrio Jalaud, Iloilo. The permit was last renewed on Feb. 24, 1972 to expire on Dec. 31, 1972.

·       March 2, 1957 – Tiburcio, Sr. died, and almost one year after Tiburcio’s death, Matilde initially sold the leasehold right on the fishpond to petitioner Olimpia Diancin on August 7, 1967 which was fully sold to the latter for a total amount of P31,000 by virtue of a deed of sale executed on June 28, 1969.

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

·       January 3, 1989 – A complaint for declaration of nullity and recovery of one-half conjugal share of the fishpond was filed by the children of Tiburcio (herein respondents) against petitioner Olimpia Diancin and Matilde. On March 16, 1989, Olimpia filed her answer alleging that the fishpond was actually government owned. On August 13, 1990, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents and declaring the Deed of Sale null and void and ordering Diancin to reconvey ½ of the Fishpond Leasehold Right to the private respondents.

·       On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC and considered the fishpond leasehold real property since it was acquired during the subsistence of the marriage of Matilde and Tiburcio, is thus presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership.

ISSUE: Whether or not the fishpond leasehold right is part of the conjugal partnership of gains.

HOLDING & RATIONALE:

- YES. The Court ruled that all property acquired by the spouses during the marriage, regardless of in whose name the same is registered, is presumed to belong to the conjugal property of gains, unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. The fishpond lease right is not paraphernal since it was acquired during the marriage between Matilde and Tiburcio. The fact that the grant was solely in the name of Matilde did not make the property paraphernal property; what was material is the time the fishpond lease right was acquired by the grantee and that was during the lawful existence of Matilde’s marriage to Tuburcio. With regard to the disposition of the entire leasehold right made by Matilde after the death of her husband, the CA correctly ruled that Matide did not have the authority to dispose of the it entirely, since the death of Tiburcio dissolved the conjugal partnership making only one half of the property right pertained to Matilde as her share in the conjugal partnership of gains and another one seventh as her share from the estate of Tiburcio. Thus, their children are entitled to the six seventh share in the other half which formed part of the estate of Tiburcio.

JUDGMENT:

The court DENIES the petition for lack of merit and affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals in declaring the final deed of sale null and void.