Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27181)
Facts:
Atienza v. De Castro, G.R. No. 169698, November 29, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Lupo Atienza (plaintiff below) filed a complaint for judicial partition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 61 (Civil Case No. 92-1423), against respondent Yolanda U. De Castro (defendant below), claiming co-ownership of a parcel in Bel-Air Subdivision covered by TCT No. 147828. Lupo alleged the property was acquired during their cohabitation and that he supplied the funds though title was taken in Yolanda’s name; Yolanda denied this and asserted she purchased the property in 1987 with her exclusive funds.The trial court, in a Decision dated December 11, 2000, ruled for petitioner Lupo, declaring the property owned in common by the parties and ordering partition. Yolanda appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69797. The CA, in a Decision dated April 29, 2005, reversed the RTC and declared the property to be exclusively owned by Yolanda, finding she proved her sole ownership and that Lupo failed to prove any actual contribution. The CA denied reconsideration in its Resolution of September 16, 2005.
Petitioner brought a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Article 148 of the Family Code govern the property relations of parties who cohabited and acquired property prior to the Family Code's effectivity?
- Did petitioner carry his burden to prove that he made an actual contribution to the purchase of the disputed property so as to establish co-ownership under Article 148?
- Can the issuance of a certificate of title in Yolanda’s name be treated as conclu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)