A.M. No. CA-13-51-J - IN RE: Fabiana

Spouses Mario and Lourdes Fernandez (respondents) filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 6756) against Guillerma Tumlos (petitioner), Toto Tumlos, and Gina Tumlos before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Valenzuela.
Respondents claimed to be absolute owners of an apartment building in Arte Subdivision III, Valenzuela, Metro Manila and alleged that the petitioners occupied the property without paying rent for about seven years since 1989.
Respondents initially allowed occupancy by tolerance but later demanded payment of unpaid rental and eviction since they needed the property for new construction.

Guillerma Tumlos filed an answer claiming co-ownership of the subject property based on a Contract to Sell identifying her as a co-vendee with Mario Fernandez.
She alleged an amorous relationship with Mario Fernandez, living together as a couple for around ten years with two children.
Guillerma claimed to have administered the property during the cohabitation by collecting rentals.
She contended that the named buyer in the Contract to Sell was altered and that she was indeed a rightful co-owner.

The MTC ruled against Guillerma, finding her evidence insufficient and ordering ejectment.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC decision, excluding the Contract to Sell submitted by the spouses due to apparent falsification and recognized Guillerma as co-owner based on cohabitation and her contributions.
The RTC also ruled that ejectment would counter the support obligation of Mario Fernandez to his children with Guillerma.

Guillerma failed to prove actual contribution to the acquisition of the property as required by Article 148 of the Family Code.
Cohabitation without proof of actual joint contribution does not establish co-ownership.
Mario Fernandez was legally married to Lourdes Fernandez; hence, Guillerma's claim arises from a concubinage relationship governed by Article 148.
Evidence regarding children and support was not properly presented and cannot bar an ejectment action.
Dismissal of complaint against other defendants (Toto and Gina Tumlos) was improper because they did not file responsive pleadings.

Petitioner challenged the CA’s acceptance of procedural lapses in the respondents’ pleadings and alleged partiality, which the CA dismissed.
Jurisdiction of the MTC to resolve possession and ownership issues was affirmed.

Whether the petitioner, Guillerma Tumlos, is a co-owner of the disputed property with Mario Fernandez.
Whether the right to support of the petitioner and her children can bar respondents’ ejectment suit against her.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying Article 148 of the Family Code regarding property relations between cohabiting parties incapable of marrying each other.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed bias against petitioner and whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the ejectment case.