G.R. No. 202805 - Banguis-Tambuyat vs. Balcom-Tambuyat

Adriano M. Tambuyat and Wenifreda Balcom-Tambuyat were married on September 16, 1965.
Adriano acquired a 700-square meter parcel of land in Bulacan on November 17, 1991, with the deed of sale signed solely by him.
The title was issued in the name of "ADRIANO M. TAMBUYAT married to ROSARIO E. BANGUIS," despite Rosario Banguis-Tambuyat being married to Eduardo Nolasco since October 15, 1975.
Adriano died intestate on June 7, 1998, leading Wenifreda to file a petition for cancellation of the title on October 18, 1999.

Wenifreda's petition claimed she was Adriano's surviving spouse and that the title was erroneously registered.
She alleged that Banguis was still married to Nolasco and could not be Adriano's spouse.
Wenifreda sought the cancellation of the title, issuance of a new title in her name, and damages.
Banguis opposed the petition, asserting she purchased the property with her own funds and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

Evidence included marriage contracts, social security records, and testimonies regarding the relationships and ownership of the property.
Banguis claimed she was married to Adriano and had a child with him, while also acknowledging her marriage to Nolasco.
The trial court considered various documents, including a negative certification of marriage between Banguis and Adriano.

The Malolos RTC ruled in favor of Wenifreda, ordering the cancellation of the title and awarding damages to her.
The court found that Wenifreda was the lawful spouse of Adriano and that the title was erroneously issued.
Banguis's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of merit.

Banguis appealed the RTC decision, arguing jurisdictional issues and the need for a separate proceeding.
The CA affirmed the RTC's decision but modified the award of damages, stating that the trial court correctly applied Section 108 of PD 1529.
The CA found that Banguis's claims of ownership were not substantiated and that she had acquiesced to the trial court's jurisdiction.

Banguis contended that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's cancellation of the title without proper jurisdiction.
She argued that the trial court disregarded her proof of ownership and possession of the property.
Banguis claimed the decision violated Article 148 of the Family Code regarding property sharing in defective marriages.
She also challenged the immediate execution of the RTC's decision despite her appeal.

Banguis maintained that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resolve the contentious issues raised in her opposition.
She argued that the property was acquired solely with her funds and that she had been in possession of it.
Banguis asserted that the case involved partitioning Adriano's estate, which should have been addressed in a different court.

Wenifreda countered that the trial court had the authority to resolve the objections raised by Banguis.
She emphasized that Banguis failed to prove her ownership of the property and that the deed of sale indicated Adriano as the sole vendee.
Wenifreda noted that Banguis had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings regarding the writ of execution but chose not to.