MILAGROS MANONGSONG, etc., et. al. vs. FELOMENA
JUMAQUIO ESTIMO, et. al., G.
R. No. 136773, June 25, 2003
“x x x.
Nevertheless, the trial court held that the Kasulatan was void because the Property was
conjugal at the time Navarro sold it to Enriqueta Lopez Jumaquio. We do not agree. The trial courts conclusion that the
Property was conjugal was not based on evidence, but rather on a
misapprehension of Article 160 of the Civil Code, which provides:
All
property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership,
unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.
As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, the presumption
under Article 160 of the Civil Code applies only when there is proof that the
property was acquired during the marriage. Proof
of acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition for the operation
of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.[28]
There was no evidence presented to establish that Navarro acquired
the Property during her marriage. There
is no basis for applying the presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code to
the present case. On the
contrary, Tax Declaration No. 911 showed that, as far back as in 1949, the
Property was declared solely in Navarros name.[29] This tends to support the argument
that the Property was not conjugal.
X x x.”
