Case Digest (G.R. No. 102330)
Facts:
Teresita C. Francisco v. Hon. Court of Appeals; and Conchita Evangelista et al., G.R. No. 102330, November 25, 1998, the Supreme Court First Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Teresita C. Francisco is the legal wife of private respondent Eusebio Francisco by his second marriage; private respondents Conchita Evangelista, Araceli F. Marilla, Antonio V. Francisco (and their spouses where named) are children of Eusebio by his first marriage. Petitioner alleged that since their marriage on February 10, 1962, she and Eusebio acquired several properties in Rodriguez (formerly Montalban), Rizal — a sari‑sari store, a residential house and lot and an apartment house on Col. S. Cruz St., Barangay Balite, and a house and lot at Barrio San Isidro — and that Eusebio became incapacitated to administer them because of illnesses, prompting the children to obtain a general power of attorney (GPA) empowering Conchita to administer the properties.
On August 31, 1988, petitioner filed a complaint for damages and annulment of the GPA, sought to enjoin its enforcement, and prayed to be declared administratrix of the disputed properties. The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment for the private respondents, dismissing the complaint, declaring Eusebio the administrator of the properties described in the complaint, and awarding P10,000 attorney’s fees against petitioner.
The Court of Appeals, in a decision penned by Justice Jose A.R. Melo and concurred in by Justices Ordoñez‑Benitez and Mendoza, affirmed the trial court in toto on October 7, 1991. Petitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (Rule 45), arguing (initially) that the Court of Appeals erred in applying Articles 158 and 160 of the New Civil Code because they were repealed by the Family Code (petitioner misidentified the repeal provision), and that Article 124 of the Family Code should have been applied; in her reply she framed the issue around whether Article 116 of the Family Code governs because of re...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the repeal of Articles 158 and 160 of the New Civil Code by the Family Code bar application of those Civil Code provisions to determine the nature of the properties?
- Are the disputed properties conjugal property of the second marriage or the exclusive/capital property of Eusebio Francisco?
- May petitioner be appointed administratrix of the subject properties on the ground that Eusebio ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)