Flores v. Escudero (1953)

Flores, et. al v. Escudero, et. al

GR No. L-5302

March 11, 1953

Ponente: Justice Montemayor

*** Appeal from a judgment of the COFI (Laguna)

FACTS:  (Based on stipulation of the parties or on their admissions)

- Simeona de Mesa was married to Regino Beltran in 1877 in San Pablo, Laguna and had three children: Mariano, Eulalio and Romualda. Regino left the conjugal home sometime in 1902 and never returned. Simeona purchased a parcel of land which now became a commercial lot in San Pablo City with an area of 146.7 square meters, assessed at P1,253 under tax declaration for P2,150 sometime in 1912 during the lifetime of Regino but while living separately from him. Simeona and sometimes her son Mariano managed the property until she sold it in 1939 to Arsenio Escudero and Rosario Adap (respondents) for P2,000, where a deed of sale conveying whatever right and interest he had to the land purchasers was signed by Mariano, one of the children. Romualda Beltran, one of the children of Simeon and Regino married Pociano Flores (petitioner) and born nine children. Upon Romualda and Simeona’s death, Flores, the surviving spouse of Romualda, on behalf of his nine children, tried to repurchase one-sixth of the whole parcel which is supposed to be the portion corresponding to Romualda’s inheritance from Regino, claiming that ½ of the parcel is part of the conjugal partnership property. The Court of First Instance found that the whole parcel was conjugal property, since it had been purchased during the marriage of Simeon and Regino; that ½ thereof belong to Regino, and that upon his death is inherited by his three children, which includes Romualda. The same court declared the sale of the parcel corresponding to Romualda null and void and ordered the spouses Escudero to execute the transfer and complete delivery of the 1/6^th portion of the parcel to Flores. The Escudero spouses aver that the land was the exclusive property of Simeona given that Regino had not contributed to its acquisition since he had abandoned and was living separately from her.

ISSUE: Whether or not the land brought by Simeona in 1912 during the lifetime of Regino but while living separately from him was conjugal partnership property.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

- YES. The law presumed all property acquired during the marriage regardless of whether the spouses are living together or not, as conjugal property. While it is true that the purchase was made exclusively by Simeona, it was not shown that such purchase was made with her own money. In the absence of proof to that effect, the law presumes that the money came from conjugal funds. Thus, the parcel of land purchased in 1912 must be considered conjugal property and that Regino was entitled to 1/2 of it, which is shared to his children intestate upon his death.

JUDGMENT:

- Judgment of the COFI affirmed.