Title
Santos vs. Santos
Case
G.R. No. 250774
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2021
Maria, Jose’s widow, claimed sole ownership of 694 sqm land via a void spousal donation. Court ruled it community property, mandating equal partition among heirs under Family Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 250774)

Antecedents

Jose Santos's history reveals that he was previously married to Josefa Santos, with whom he had several children. After Josefa passed away, Jose married Maria D. Santos. Before his death in 2010, Jose had acquired land through disturbance compensation from his landlord, which later led to the disputed property. The business and personal dynamics between Jose and Maria became complex following his death, with conflicting claims over property ownership.

Applicable Law

The relevant legal framework includes the Family Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 87, which prohibits donations between spouses during marriage. The partition proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court, primarily Rule 69 concerning partition of property among co-owners.

Lower Courts' Rulings

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled that the property belonged to Jose and was not part of the absolute community property, rendering Maria’s claim based on the donation void. Following motions for reconsideration, the RTC affirmed its position but acknowledged Maria's substantial claim to the property as Jose’s surviving spouse. Eventually, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC’s ruling, stating that Maria and Jose’s children would each share ownership of half of the property post Jose's death due to the characterization of the property as part of the community property.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court addressed several key issues presented on appeal. Finding that the CA had both principles of law and factual errors in its determination, the Supreme Court concluded that Maria correctly filed an ordinary appeal under Rule 44 and stated that the transfer of property from the Gaspar family to Jose was not gratuitous. The Court clarified the nature of the property acquisition, asserting that it constituted part of the absolute community of property due to its classification as disturbance compensation, thereby entitling Maria to half of the property. Consequently, the other half would be apportioned among Jose’s children and grandchi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.