Case Digest (G.R. No. 143286)
Facts:
In Procopio Villanueva, Nicolas Retuya and Pacita Villanueva v. Court of Appeals and the Heirs of Eusebia Napisa Retuya (G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004), petitioner Eusebia Napisa Retuya, married to Nicolas Retuya since October 7, 1926, sued her husband, his concubine Pacita Villanueva, and their illegitimate son Procopio Villanueva before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Mandaue City, on October 13, 1988. She sought reconveyance of twenty-two parcels of land and a house in Mandaue City and Consolacion, Cebu, claiming these were conjugal properties under Article 116 of the Family Code; she also prayed for accounting, damages, and delivery of rents. The trial court on February 16, 1994 declared all subject properties conjugal, ordered reconveyances, turnover of income from January 27, 1985, and awarded attorney’s fees of ₱50,000.00. Petitioners appealed; the Court of Appeals on January 31, 2000 affirmed the decision but deleted the attorney’s fees award. Petitioners’ motionCase Digest (G.R. No. 143286)
Facts:
- Parties and Marriage
- Eusebia Napisa Retuya (plaintiff) married Nicolas Retuya on October 7, 1926; they had five legitimate children.
- In 1936, Nicolas began cohabiting with Pacita Villanueva; they had an illegitimate son, Procopio Villanueva.
- Subject Properties and Procedural History
- Eusebia sued Nicolas, Pacita and Procopio on October 13, 1988 for:
- Reconveyance of 22 parcels of land and a house acquired during her marriage with Nicolas (some under Pacita’s name).
- Accounting, damages, and delivery of rents and income.
- Income from these properties had been collected by Nicolas until his stroke in January 1985, thereafter by Procopio.
- Trial court (Mandaue City RTC, Branch 55) rendered decision on February 16, 1994 declaring the properties conjugal, ordering reconveyance, accounting and payment of attorney’s fees.
- On appeal (CA-G.R. No. CV-46716), the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees (January 31, 2000) and denied motion for reconsideration (May 11, 2000).
- This petition for certiorari under Rule 45 challenges the CA decision.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the listed properties conjugal despite it not being a distinct cause of action in the complaint.
- Whether the presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code applies to properties acquired during marriage.
- Whether instead the presumption under Article 148 in favor of co-ownership between cohabitants (Nicolas and Pacita) should govern.
- Whether the reconveyance action over Lot No. 152 is barred by prescription or laches.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)