View full case

PROCOPIO VILLANUEVA v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over properties owned by spouses Eusebia Retuya and Nicolas Retuya. Eusebia filed a complaint seeking the reconveyance of several properties, claiming that they are her conjugal properties with Nicolas. She also requested accounting, damages, and the delivery of rent and other income from the properties. It was established by the trial court that Eusebia and Nicolas were married and had five children together. They acquired real properties during their marriage, some of which generated income from coconuts or were leased to others.

In 1945, Nicolas started living with Pacita Villanueva and they had an illegitimate son named Procopio. Nicolas no longer lived with his legitimate family and was the only one who received income from the properties. In 1985, Nicolas suffered a stroke and became physically incapacitated, hence Procopio started receiving the income from the properties.

Eusebia attempted to negotiate with Procopio regarding the matter, but he refused to discuss it. She sought mediation and made written demands for settlement, but no agreement was reached. The trial court ruled in favor of Eusebia, declaring the properties as conjugal and ordering the transfer of administration to her. The court also ordered Procopio to account for and turnover the income of the properties.

Defendants appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court's decision but deleted the award of attorney's fees. Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, but it was denied. The parties raised several issues on appeal, including the nature of the properties in question, the application of the presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code, and the failure to include defenses of prescription and laches in the pre-trial order.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the declaration of the trial court that the properties listed in the complaint are conjugal properties.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the presumption that properties acquired during the existence of the marriage are conjugal.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the presumption of co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code.

  4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring that the action for reconveyance is already barred by prescription or laches.

  5. Whether the defense of prescription and laches can be raised for the first time on appeal.

  6. Whether the subject properties are conjugal.

  7. Whether the tax declarations are sufficient proof to overcome the presumption that all property acquired during the marriage is conjugal unless proved otherwise

  8. Whether Nicolas' misrepresentation of his civil status in some documents is proof that the subject properties are not conjugal

  9. Whether Pacita's financial capacity to buy a property proves that she used her own money to acquire Lot No. 152

  10. Whether the cohabitation of Nicolas and Pacita severs the tie of Nicolas' previous marriage with Eusebia, making the properties acquired during their cohabitation non-conjugal

  11. Whether Article 148 of the Family Code applies to the case and requires proof of actual joint contribution

RULING:

  1. The petition lacks merit.

  2. First Issue: Alleged Failure to Claim Conjugal Properties:

  3. Petitioners' contention that Eusebia's complaint failed to state that the subject properties are conjugal is without basis. A cursory reading of the complaint readily shows that the complaint maintains that the subject properties are conjugal. Thus, the Court rejects this argument.

  4. Second Issue: Prescription and Laches:

  5. The defense of prescription and laches raised by the petitioners in their answer was not included in the pre-trial order, therefore, barred from consideration during the trial. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals' ruling on this matter.

  6. The defense of prescription and laches cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because parties are not allowed to flip-flop. Since the defense was not raised during the trial, it cannot be raised on appeal.

  7. The subject properties are conjugal. Under the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during the marriage, the presumption is that they are conjugal. The burden of proof is on the party claiming that they are not conjugal. In this case, both the trial and appellate courts found that the subject properties were acquired during the marriage. The tax declarations and unrebutted testimony of Eusebia's witnesses establish this fact. The burden is on petitioners to prove that the subject properties are not conjugal, but they failed to meet this standard.

  8. No, the tax declarations are not sufficient proof to overcome the presumption. The presumption that all property acquired during the marriage is conjugal remains even if the property is registered in the name of one or both of the spouses.

  9. No, Nicolas' misrepresentation of his civil status does not change the character of conjugal property. Whether a property is conjugal or not is determined by law, and no unilateral declaration by one spouse can change its character.

  10. No, Pacita's financial capacity does not prove that she used her own money to acquire Lot No. 152. The presumption that the property is conjugal remains, and the burden of proof is on the petitioners to show that Pacita used her own money.

  11. No, the cohabitation of Nicolas and Pacita does not sever the tie of Nicolas' previous marriage with Eusebia. The marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia continued to exist, and all properties acquired during their marriage are still presumed conjugal.

  12. No, Article 148 of the Family Code does not apply to the case. Proof of actual joint contribution is required for co-ownership under Article 148, and the petitioners failed to show proof of Pacita's actual contribution to the acquisition of Lot No. 152.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of issues during the pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other questions, whether during trial or on appeal. Parties are bound by the delimitation of the issues during pre-trial because they themselves agreed to the same.

  • Issues not included in the pre-trial order may be considered only if they are impliedly included in the issues raised or inferable from the issues raised by necessary implication.

  • Exceptions may be made to review matters raised for the first time during appeal, but only in clearly meritorious situations.

  • The defense of prescription and laches cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

  • Under the Family Code, if properties are acquired during the marriage, they are presumed to be conjugal.

  • The burden of proof is on the party claiming that the properties are not conjugal.

  • Factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are given due deference.

  • All property acquired by spouses during the marriage is presumed conjugal unless proved otherwise (Article 116 of the Family Code).

  • Unilateral declarations by a spouse cannot change the character of conjugal property.

  • Financial capacity alone does not prove that a property was acquired with one's own money.

  • Cohabitation of a spouse with another person does not sever the tie of a previous marriage.

  • Article 148 of the Family Code requires proof of actual joint contribution for co-ownership.