Title
Adriano vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 124118
Decision Date
Mar 27, 2000
Lucio Adriano's contested property, acquired with conjugal funds from his marriage to Gliceria, was validly disposed of in his will. Vicenta, his cohabiting partner, had no rightful share, as no co-ownership arose during Lucio's marriage to Gliceria.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 124118)

Facts:

1. Family Background:

  • Lucio Adriano (also known as Ambrocio Adriano) married Gliceria Dorado on October 29, 1933. They had three children: Celestina, Manolo, and Aida (private respondents).
  • Lucio and Gliceria separated in 1942 or earlier. Gliceria settled in Rizal, Laguna, where she died on June 11, 1968.
  • Lucio cohabited with Vicenta Villa in 1942 or earlier, and they had eight children: Marino, Renato, Leticia, Imelda, Maria Alicia, Ligaya, Jose Vergel, and Zenaida (petitioners). Jose Vergel died before the proceedings began.
  • Lucio married Vicenta on November 22, 1968, five months after Gliceria's death. They separated in 1972.

2. Execution of the Will:

  • On October 10, 1980, Lucio executed a last will and testament, disposing of his properties. The will assigned shares to Vicenta and all his children from both marriages.
  • The contested property was a 45,000 square meter lot in Candelaria, Quezon, with a residential house, rice mill, warehouse, and equipment. The will allocated:
    • 10,000 square meters (including the warehouse, rice mill, and equipment) to his children by Gliceria (private respondents).
    • 35,000 square meters to Vicenta and his children by her (petitioners).
    • The residential house to private respondents.

3. Probate and Legal Proceedings:

  • Lucio died on February 11, 1981. Celestina Adriano, the executrix named in the will, filed for probate on February 18, 1981 (Spec. Proc. No. 4442).
  • Vicenta opposed the probate, but the RTC allowed it on August 22, 1983. Vicenta appealed, but the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the probate. Vicenta died on July 2, 1985.
  • On August 17, 1988, petitioners filed Civil Case No. 88-115 to annul Lucio's will, claiming that the properties were part of a civil partnership or conjugal properties of Lucio and Vicenta, and thus, the will was void as to Vicenta's share.

4. Evidence Presented:

  • Private respondents presented evidence that the contested properties were acquired using funds from Lucio's business partnership, which was funded by the conjugal partnership of Lucio and Gliceria.
  • The trial court found that the initial capital of P15,000.00 for the partnership came from the savings of Lucio and Gliceria, earned through their joint efforts before and during World War II.
  • The court also found that Lucio's subsequent investments in the partnership were made using proceeds from the conjugal partnership with Gliceria.

Issue:

  1. Whether the property covered by TCT No. T-56553 is part of the conjugal partnership of Lucio and Gliceria or co-owned by Lucio and Vicenta.
  2. Whether the will of Lucio Adriano is valid and enforceable as to the disposition of the contested property.
  3. Whether Vicenta Villa has a rightful share in the contested property, given her cohabitation with Lucio during his marriage to Gliceria.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the RTC's ruling. The Court held that:

  1. The contested property is part of the conjugal partnership of Lucio and Gliceria, as it was acquired using funds from their conjugal partnership.
  2. The will of Lucio Adriano is valid and enforceable, and the disposition of the property in accordance with the will is proper.
  3. Vicenta Villa has no rightful share in the contested property, as her cohabitation with Lucio during his marriage to Gliceria did not create a co-ownership under Article 144 of the Civil Code.

Ratio:

  1. Conjugal Partnership Presumption: Properties acquired during a marriage are presumed to be conjugal unless proven otherwise. The evidence showed that the contested property was acquired using funds from the conjugal partnership of Lucio and Gliceria.
  2. No Co-Ownership with Vicenta: Article 144 of the Civil Code, which governs co-ownership between unmarried couples, does not apply when one party is legally married to another. Since Lucio was married to Gliceria during his cohabitation with Vicenta, no co-ownership was created.
  3. Constructive Trust: The registration of the property in the names of Lucio and Vicenta was a mistake. A constructive trust is deemed to have been created under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, with Vicenta holding the property in trust for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of Lucio and Gliceria.
  4. Best Evidence Rule: The Deed of Sale, which petitioners claimed designated Vicenta as a co-buyer, was not presented in evidence. The memorandum in the OCT is not admissible as evidence of the contents of the Deed of Sale.

The Court concluded that the property rightfully belongs to the conjugal partnership of Lucio and Gliceria, and the will's disposition of the property is valid. Vicenta has no rightful share in the property, and the registration of the property in her name was a mistake that does not confer ownership.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.