G.R. No. L-26462 June 9, 1969
Complete Names of Parties
TERESITA C. YAPTINCHAY (COHABITATION PARTNER), petitioner,
vs.
HON. GUILLERMO E. TORRES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch; VIRGINIA Y. YAPTINCHAY (DAUGHTER), in her own behalf and in her capacity as Special Administratrix in the Intestate Estate of the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay and JESUS MONZON, MARY YAPTINCHAY ELIGIR, ERNESTO YAPTINCHAY, ANTONIO YAPTINCHAY, ASUNCION YAPTINCHAY, JOSEFINA Y. YAPTINCHAY (LEGAL SPOUSE), ROSA Y. MONZON, ISABEL Y. VALERIANO, REMEDIOS Y. YAPTINCHAY, FELICIDAD Y. ARGUELLES, MARY DOE and JOHN DOE, respondents.
ISIDRO – Husband who cohabited
THESIS STATEMENT
Petitioner Teresita, cohabitation partner of Isidro, claims Article 148 or co-ownership of the house in North Forbes Park on the grounds that she contributed to it during their cohabitation while the husband has subsisting marriage. Court dismissed her petition for failure to support her claim with convincing evidence, therefore, house goes to CPG of subsisting marriage.
The RELIEFS sought:
FACTS
- Petitioner Teresita claims that she was the Administratix of the estate of the late Isidro Yaptinchay. Isidro died without a will.
- She alleged that the she and the deceased had lived continuously, openly and publicly as husband and wife for nineteen (19) years without marriage
- Fact 3
Who filed to RTC: Teresita
THE RTC RULED: Appointed petitioner Teresita C. Yaptinchay special administratrix of the state of the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay
Reasons:
After hearing the oppositors, Court granted the adminstration to respondents. Teresita filed in other courts, but was subsequently denied.
| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT |
| Before SC: She was occupying the Forbes Park property at the time of the death of Isidro Yaptinchay, grave abuse of discretion attended respondent judge’s order issuing an injunctive writ transferring possession of said property to respondent Virginia Y. Yaptinchay.Forbes Property was financed by “our joint efforts”Claims Article 144 of CC: “When man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.” . | Teresita not being an heir of the decedent, had no right to institute the proceeding for the settlement of the latter’s estate, much less to procure appointment as administratrix thereof; and that having admittedly cohabited with the deceased for a number of years said petitioner was not qualified to serve as administratrix for want of integrity.Virginia Y. Yaptinchay, daughter of the deceased, as special administratrix and of Josefina Y. Yaptinchay, the alleged surviving spouse, as regular administratrix. |
Who filed to SC:
ISSUE 1: Is Petitioner Teresita (Cohabitation partner) the Special Administratrix of the Forbes Park Property?
RULING/RATIO 1: No
(1) Special proceedings/evidence adduced that it belongs to conjugal partnership
(2) Petitioner Teresita’s claims in petitions are varying
ISSUE 2: Did the court abused its discretion?
RULING/RATIO 2: No. Because petitioner failed to prove that the Forbes Park house was paid by her efforts. Her promissory notes in Republic Bank did not mention the assailed property.
ISSUE 3: Can Teresita claim Article 144?
RULING/RATIO 2: No. There must be clear showing that the petitioner had, during cohabitation, really contributed to the acquisition of the property involved. Until such right to co-ownership is duly established, petitioner’s interests in the property in controversy cannot be considered the “present right”
Ponente:
SUPREME COURT RULING: Petition Dismissed.
English