MODULE 5
I. Conjugal Partnership of Gains (Articles 116-133, Family Code)
1
CASE DIGEST
Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004
FACTS:
On 13 October 1988, Eusebia Retuya filed a complaint before the trial court against her husband Nicolas
Retuya, Pacita Villanueva and Nicolas’ son with Pacita, Procopio Villanueva. Eusebia sought the reconveyance
from Nicolas and Pacita of several properties (subject properties), claiming that such are her conjugal
properties with Nicolas. Plaintiff Eusebia, is the legal wife of defendant Nicolas, having been married on
October 7, 1926. Out of the lawful wedlock, they begot five (5) children. Spouses Retuya resided at Mandaue
City. During their marriage, they acquired real properties and all improvements situated in Mandaue City, and
Consolacion, Cebu. Nicolas is the co-owner of a parcel of land situated in Mandaue City which he inherited
from his parents Esteban Retuya and Balbina Solon as well as the purchasers of hereditary shares of
approximately eight (8) parcels of land in Mandaue City. Some of the properties earn income from coconuts
leased to corporations
In 1945, Nicolas no longer lived with his legitimate family and cohabited with defendant, Pacita Villanueva,
wherein Procopio Villanueva, is their illegitimate son. Nicolas, then, was the only person who received the
income of the properties. Pacita, from the time she started living in concubinage with Nicolas, has no
occupation. She had no properties of her own from which she could derive income. From the time Nicolas
suffered stroke until the present, his illegitimate son is already the one who has been receiving the income of
his properties
Settlement between parties was asked but not met. Trial court in favor of Eusebia Natuya. Petitioners
appealed. Eusebia died, and was then substituted by her heirs. CA upheld trial court’s decision
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject properties acquired during the marriage between Eusebia and Procopio are
conjugal
HELD:
YES, they are conjugal. Petition denied; decision of CA affirmed
RATIO:
The Family Code provisions on conjugal partnerships govern the property relations between Nicolas and
Eusebia even if they were married before the effectivity of Family Code.
Article 105 of the Family Code explicitly mandates that the Family Code shall apply to conjugal partnerships
established before the Family Code without prejudice to vested rights already acquired under the Civil Code or
other laws. Thus, under the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during the marriage, the presumption
is that they are conjugal. The burden of proof is on the party claiming that they are not conjugal. This is
counter-balanced by the requirement that the properties must first be proven to have been acquired during
the marriage before they are presumed conjugal.
Nicolas and Eusebia were married on 7 October 1926. Nicolas and Pacita started cohabiting in 1936. Eusebia
died on 23 November 1996. Pacita and Nicolas were married on 16 December 1996. Petitioners themselves
admit that Lot No. 152 was purchased on 4 October 1957. The date of acquisition of Lot No. 152 is clearly
during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia.
Since the subject properties, including Lot No. 152, were acquired during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia,
the presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code is that all these are conjugal properties of Nicolas and
Eusebia.
Reference: https://lexphil.blogspot.com/2014/09/villanueva-vs-court-of-appeals-gr-no.html