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 Summary (G.R. No. 124118)

Case Overview

  • Parties Involved: Petitioners - Marino, Renato, Leticia, Imelda, Alicia, Ligaya, and Zenaida Adriano; Respondents - Court of Appeals, Celestina, Manolo, and Aida Adriano.
  • Legal Context: Petition for review on certiorari regarding the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) dismissal of a civil case for annulment of will.

Background Facts

  • Family Relations: Lucio Adriano had children from two marriages; three children with first wife Gliceria Dorado and eight with second partner Vicenta Villa.
  • Marriage Events: Lucio married Gliceria on October 29, 1933, and they separated before Gliceria's death in 1968. Lucio married Vicenta on November 22, 1968.
  • Will Execution: Lucio executed a last will on October 10, 1980, detailing property distribution among his children and wives.

Legal Proceedings

Probate and Opposition

  • Probate Case: Celestina Adriano filed for probate of Lucio's will in RTC Lucena, which was allowed despite opposition from Vicenta.
  • Civil Case for Annulment: Petitioners filed for annulment of Lucio's will, claiming properties were conjugal properties acquired during Lucio's cohabitation with Vicenta.

Court Findings

RTC Decision

  • Dismissal of Annulment: The RTC found no grounds to nullify Lucio’s will, affirming that properties were acquired with conjugal funds from his first marriage.
  • Property Evidence: Evidence presented indicated that properties in question were funded by Lucio's earnings during his marriage to Gliceria.

Appeal and Court of Appeals Ruling

  • Affirmation of RTC: The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's decision, ruling that the properties in question were conjugal properties of Lucio and Gliceria.
  • Co-ownership Claim: Petitioners claimed co-ownership based on TCT No. T-56553 and a Deed of Sale from 1964. The court ruled these did not establish Vicenta's ownership due to Lucio's prior marriage.

Legal Principles Established

Co-Ownership in Civil Code

  • Article 144: Addresses co-ownership principles for partners living together without marriage but requires that both parties must not be legally incapacitated to marry.
  • Conjugal Property Presumption: Properties acquired during a valid marriage are presumed conjugal unless proven otherwise.

Key Rulings on Property Ownership

  • Trust Doctrine: The court invoked the principle that property acquired during a marriage, even if titled in a common-law spouse's name, remains part of the conjugal property.
  • Evidence Requirement: Petitioners failed to present substantial proof that Vicenta contributed to the acquisition of the contested properties.

Conclusion

  • The decision of the RTC was upheld, affirming the testamentary provisions of Lucio Adriano's will.
  • Petitioners’ claims were dismissed, emphasizing the binding nature of the trial court's factual findings and evidence regarding property ownership.

Key Takeaways

  • No Grounds for Annulment: The court found no legitimate basis to annul Lucio's will.
  • Conjugal Property: Properties were ruled as conjugal, belonging to Lucio and Gliceria, not Vicenta.
  • Evidence Standards: The importan
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research tool in the Philippines with case digests and full jurisprudence. AI summaries highlight key points but might skip important details or context. Always check the full text for accuracy.