Complete Names of Parties
ERLINDA A. AGAPAY (live-in partner), Petitioner, v. CARLINA (CORNELIA) V. PALANG (legal wife) and HERMINIA P. DELA CRUZ (legitimate child), Respondents.
Miguel Palang (deceased husband)
THESIS STATEMENT
Petitioner live-in partner argues that she is the owner of the properties acquired by Miguel who had a subsistent marriage prior to their cohabitation and marriage. She aver that she contributed to the purchase of the properties but failed to support by evidence. Properties adjudicated to legal wife and legitimate child.
The RELIEFS sought: Reverse the CA ruling. Cohabitation partner is co-owner of the properties.
SYLLABUS
Property ownership in Cohabitation with impediments must prove with sufficient evidence that he/she contributed money to purchase the property.
FACTS
- Miguel Palang (63 yr old) cohabited and contracted 2nd marriage with Erlinda Agapay (19 yr old) in 1973, while his first marriage with respondent Palang was subsisting
- Miguel and Erlinda purchased around 1 hectare agri land in Binalonan, Pangasinan 2 months earlier under their names
- Roughly 2 years after, a house and lot was purchased in the same town under Erlinda’s name
- The legal wife, respondent herein, filed a criminal case against Miguel and Erlinda, as well as an action for recovery of ownership of the Binalonan agri land and house
| PLAINTIFF ERLINDA | DEFENDANT |
| Riceland is registered under her name, half is given to her sonHouse she bought with her own money | Conjugal property since it was bought during the subsistence of their first marriage |
Who filed to RTC: Respondents Cornelia
THE RTC RULED: Erlinda is the owner, Illegitimate child Kristopher is heir to 1/2 of the property
Reasons:
Who filed to CA: Respondents Cornelia
The COURT OF APPEALS ruled: REVERSED RTC
Reasons:
Who filed to SC: Live-in Partner Erlinda
ISSUE 1: Is Erlinda the owner of the two Binalonan riceland Properties?
RULING/RATIO 1: No.
(1) Erlinda and Miguel were not capacitated to marry each other live exclusively as husband and wife. Hence, Article 148 of FC – only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions.
(2) Evidence of Actual contribution is required by this provision. Petitioner claimed that she had a sari-sari store but failed to persuade us that she actually contributed money to buy the subject riceland. petitioner was only around twenty years of age and Miguel Palang was already sixty-four and a pensioner of the U.S. Government. Considering her youthfulness, it is unrealistic to conclude that she contributed to the purchase of the land.
Ponente: Romero J
SUPREME COURT RULING: Petitioner Dismissed
English