G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997ERLINDA A. AGAPAY, petitioner, vs.CARLINA (CORNELIA) V. PALANG an !ER"INIA P. DELA CR#$, respondents. RO"ERO, J.:Before us is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 241 entitled !"rlinda A#apa$v. Carlina %Cornelia& 'alan# and (er)inia '. *ela Cru+! dated ,une 22, 14 involvin# the ownership of two parcels of landac-uired durin# the coha.itation of petitioner and private respondent/s le#iti)ate spouse.0i#uel 'alan#contractedhis1rst )arria#eon,ul$12, 14whenhetoo3privaterespondent Carlina%or Cornelia&Vallesterol as a wife at the 'o+orru.io Ro)an Catholic Church in 'an#asinan. A few )onths after the weddin#, in 4cto.er14, he left to wor3 in (awaii. 0i#uel and Carlina/s onl$ child, (er)inia 'alan#, was .orn on 0a$ 12, 156.0i#uel returned in 154 for a $ear. (is ne7t visit to the 'hilippines was in 124 and durin# the entire duration of his $ear-lon# so8ourn he sta$ed in 9a).ales with his .rother,not in 'an#asinan with his wife and child. :hetrialcourt foundevidence that as earl$ as 15;, 0i#uel had atte)pted to divorce Carlina in (awaii.1 ale,8ointl$ purchased a parcel of a#ricultural land located at >an ?elipe, Binalonan, 'an#asinan with an area of 16,6@6 s-uare)eters. Conse-uentl$, :ransfer Certi1cate of :itle No. 161;=2 coverin# said rice land was issued in their na)es.A house and lot in Binalonan, 'an#asinan was li3ewise purchased on >epte).er 2=, 1;5, alle#edl$ .$ "rlinda as the solevendee. :C: No. 14=126 coverin# said propert$ was later issued in her na)e.4n 4cto.er =6, 1;5, 0i#uel and Cornelia 'alan# e7ecuted a *eed of *onation as a for) of co)pro)ise a#ree)ent tosettle and end a case 1led .$ the latter. % :he parties therein a#reed to donate their con8u#al propert$ consistin# of si7parcels of land to their onl$ child, (er)inia 'alan#. &0i#uel and "rlinda/s coha.itation produced a son, Aristopher A. 'alan#, .orn on *ece).er 2, 1;;. Bn 1;, 0i#uel and"rlinda were convicted of Concu.ina#e upon Carlina/s co)plaint. ' :wo $ears later, on ?e.ruar$ 15, 1@1, 0i#uel died.4n ,ul$ 11, 1@1, Carlina 'alan# and her dau#hter (er)inia 'alan# de la Cru+, herein private respondents, instituted thecase at .ar, an action for recover$ of ownership and possession with da)a#es a#ainst petitioner .efore the Re#ional :rialCourt in Crdaneta, 'an#asinan %Civil Case No. C-4225&. 'rivate respondents sou#ht to #et .ac3 the riceland and the houseand lot .oth located at Binalonan, 'an#asinan alle#edl$ purchased .$ 0i#uel durin# his coha.itation with petitioner.'etitioner, as defendant .elow, contended that while the riceland covered .$ :C: No. 161;=2 is re#istered in their na)es%0i#uel and "rlinda&, she had alread$ #iven her half of the propert$ to their son Aristopher 'alan#. >he added that thehouse and lot covered .$ :C: No. 14=126 is her sole propert$, havin# .ou#ht the sa)e with her own )one$. "rlindaadded that Carlina is precluded fro) clai)in# aforesaid properties since the latter had alread$ donated their con8u#alestate to (er)inia.After trial on the )erits, the lower court rendered its decision on ,une =6, 1@ dis)issin# the co)plaint after declarin#that there was little evidence to prove that the su.8ect properties pertained to the con8u#al propert$ of Carlina and 0i#uel'alan#. :helowercourtwentontoprovidefortheintestatesharesof theparties, particularl$of Aristopher'alan#,0i#uel/s ille#iti)ate son. :he dispositive portion of the decision reads.an?elipe, Binalonan, 'an#asinan, consistin# of 16,6@6 s-uare )eters and as evidenced .$ :C: No. 161;=2, Got 112=-A to "rlinda A#apa$F4. Ad8udicatin# to Aristopher 'alan# as his inheritance fro) his deceased father, 0i#uel 'alan#, the one-half %1H2&of the a#ricultural land situated at Balisa, >an ?elipe, Binalonan, 'an#asinan, under :C: No. 161;=2 in the na)e of0i#uel 'alan#, provided that the for)er %Aristopher& e7ecutes, within 15 da$s after this decision .eco)es 1nal ande7ecutor$, a -uit-clai) forever renouncin# an$ clai)s to annulHreduce the donation to (er)inia 'alan# de la Cru+of all con8u#al properties of her parents, 0i#uel 'alan# and Carlina Vallesterol 'alan#, dated 4cto.er =6, 1;5,otherwise, the estate of deceased 0i#uel 'alan# will have to .e settled in another separate actionF5& No pronounce)ent as to da)a#es and attorne$/s fees.>4 4R*"R"*. 64n appeal, respondent court reversed the trial court/s decision. :he Court of Appeals rendered its decision on ,ul$ 22,14 with the followin# dispositive portionF"> C4N>B*"R"*, the appealed decision in here.$ R"V"R>"* and another one enteredI1. *eclarin# plaintiEs-appellants the owners of the properties in -uestionF2. 4rderin# defendant-appellee to vacate and deliver the properties in -uestion to herein plaintiEs-appellantsF=. 4rderin# the Re#ister of *eeds of 'an#asinan to cancel :ransfer Certi1cate of :itle Nos. 14=126 and 161;=2and to issue in lieu thereof another certi1cate of title in the na)e of plaintiEs-appellants.No pronounce)ent as to costs. 7(ence, this petition.'etitioner clai)s that the Court of Appeals erred in not sustainin# the validit$ of two deeds of a.solute sale coverin# thericeland and the house and lot, the 1rst in favor of 0i#uel 'alan# and "rlinda A#apa$ and the second, in favor of "rlindaA#apa$ alone. >econd, petitioner contends that respondent appellate court erred in not declarin# Aristopher A. 'alan# as0i#uel 'alan#/s ille#iti)ate son and thus entitled to inherit fro) 0i#uel/s estate. :hird, respondent court erred, accordin#to petitioner, !in not 1ndin# that there is suJcient pleadin# and evidence that Aristopher A. 'alan# or Christopher A.'alan# should .e considered as part$-defendant in Civil Case No. C-4225 .efore the trial court and in CA-G.R. No. 241. 8After stud$in# the )erits of the instant case, as well as the pertinent provisions of law and 8urisprudence, the Court deniesthe petition and aJr)s the -uestioned decision of the Court of Appeals.:he 1rst and principal issue is the ownership of the two pieces of propert$ su.8ect of this action. 'etitioner assails thevalidit$ of the deeds of conve$ance over the sa)e parcels of land. :here is no dispute that the transfer of ownership fro)the ori#inal owners of the riceland and the house and lot, Cora+on Blo)in and the spouses Cespedes, respectivel$, werevalid.:he sale of the riceland on 0a$ 1;, 1;=, was )ade in favor of 0i#uel and "rlinda. :he provision of law applica.le here isArticle 14@ of the ?a)il$ Code providin# for cases of coha.itation when a )an and a wo)an who are not capacitated to)arr$ each other live e7clusivel$ with each other as hus.and and wife without the .ene1t of )arria#e or under a void)arria#e. ince petitioner failed to prove that she contri.uted )one$ to the purchase price of the riceland in Binalonan, 'an#asinan,we 1nd no .asis to 8ustif$ her co-ownership with 0i#uel over the sa)e. Conse-uentl$, the riceland should, as correctl$held .$ the Court of Appeals, revert to the con8u#al partnership propert$ of the deceased 0i#uel and private respondentCarlina 'alan#.?urther)ore, it is i))aterial that 0i#uel and Carlina previousl$ a#reed to donate their con8u#al propert$ in favor of theirdau#hter (er)inia in 1;5. :he trial court erred in holdin# that the decision adoptin# their co)pro)ise a#ree)ent !ineEect parta3es the nature of 8udicial con1r)ation of the separation of propert$ .etween spouses and the ter)ination ofthe con8u#al partnership.! 12 >eparation of propert$ .etween spouses durin# the )arria#e shall not ta3e place e7cept .$8udicialorder orwithout 8udicialconfer)ent when there is ane7press stipulation in the )arria#e settle)ents.1% :he8ud#)ent which resulted fro) the parties/ co)pro)ise was not speci1call$ and e7pressl$ for separation of propert$ andshould not .e so inferred.B*". :he 8ud#)ent of the court a quo dated ,une 5,1; is here.$ R"BN>:A:"*. Costs a#ainst the private respondents.3:he assailed 4rder of the R:C disposed as followsICRA =46&. :he care#iven .$ one part$ KtoL the ho)e, children, and household, or spiritual or )oral inspiration provided to the other, is notincluded in Article 14@ %(and.oo3 on the ?a)il$ Code of the 'hilippines .$ Alicia V. >e)pio-*i$, 1@@ ed., p. 26&. (ence,if actual contri.utionof thepart$isnotproved, therewill .enoco-ownershipandnopresu)ptionof e-ual shares%A#apa$, supra at p. =4@, citing Co))entaries and ,urisprudence on the Civil Code of the 'hilippines Volu)e B .$ Arturo0. :olentino, 16 ed., p. 566&.Bntheinstantcase, noproofofactual contri.ution.$Guiller)a:u)losinthepurchaseofthesu.8ectpropert$waspresented. (er onl$ evidence was her .ein# na)ed in the Contract to >ell as the wife of KRespondentL 0ario ?ernande+.>ince she failed to prove that she contri.uted )one$ to the purchase price of the su.8ect apart)ent .uildin#, ection 11 10 of Rule 1= of theRevised Rules of Court and despite the rulin# in $olar Team %ntertainment, nc. v. Ricafort. 112. Bt allowed respondents to su.)it the pleadin#s that were not attached.=. Bt considered respondents/ Repl$ dated 0a$ 26, 1@, which had alle#edl$ .een 1led out of ti)e.4. Bt declared that the case was su.)itted for decision without 1rst deter)inin# whether to #ive due course to the'etition, pursuant to >ection 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. 12:he CA, for its part, succinctl$ dis)issed these ar#u)ents in this wiseIBt is too late in the da$ now to -uestion the alle#ed procedural error after we have rendered the decision. 0orei)portantl$, when the private respondent 1led their co))ent to the petition on April 22, 1@, the$ failed to-uestion such alle#ed procedural error. Neither have the$ -uestioned all the resolutions issued .$ the Court aftertheir 1lin# of such co))ent. :he$ should, therefore, .e now considered in estoppel to -uestion the sa)e. 13ince the issue ofpossession cannot .e settled without passin# upon that of ownership, she )aintains that the 0:C should have dis)issedthe case.:his contention is erroneous. :he issue of ownership )a$ .e passed upon .$ the 0:C to settle the issue ofpossession. 15 >uch disposition, however, is not 1nal insofar as the issue of ownership is concerned, 16 which )a$ .e thesu.8ect of another proceedin# .rou#ht speci1call$ to settle that -uestion.(avin# resolved these preli)inar$ )atters, we now )ove on to petitionerMs su.stantive contentions.First ssueI"etitioner as Co-o&ner'etitionerMs central theor$ and )ain defense a#ainst respondents/ action for e8ect)ent is her clai) of co-ownership overthe propert$ with Respondent 0ario ?ernande+. At the 1rst instance .efore the 0:C, she presented a Contract to >ellindicatin# that she was his spouse. :he 0:C found this docu)ent insuJcient to support her clai). :he R:C, however,afterconsiderin# heralle#ationthatshe had.eencoha.itin# with 0ario ?ernande+as shown.$ evidencepresented.efore it, 17 ruled in her favor.4ntheotherhand, theCAheldthatthepiecesof evidenceadduced.eforetheR:Ccouldnolon#er.econsidered.ecause the$ hadnot .een su.)itted .eforethe0:C. (ence,theappellatecourtconcludedthat !KtLheclai) ofco-ownership was not satisfactoril$ proven . . .! 18hare, Accountin# and *a)a#es! a#ainst respondent 0a. "lvira Castillo. :he co)plaint, doc3eted as Civil Case No. =-252at the Re#ional:rialCourt in 0a3atiCit$, alle#ed that petitioner and respondent, .oth )arried and with children, .utseparatedfro)their respectivespouses, coha.itedafter a.rief courtshipso)eti)ein1;whiletheir respective)arria#es still su.sisted. *urin# their union, the$ set up the >uperfrei#ht Custo)s Bro3era#e Corporation, with petitioneraspresident andchair)anof the.oardof directors, andrespondent asvice-president andtreasurer. :he.usinessNourished and petitioner and respondent ac-uired real and personal properties which were re#istered solel$ inrespondent/s na)e. Bn 12, due to irreconcila.le diEerences, the couple separated. 'etitioner de)anded fro)respondent his share in the su.8ect properties, .ut respondent refused alle#in# that said properties had .een re#isteredsolel$ in her na)e.Bn her A)ended Answer,3 respondent ad)itted that she en#a#ed in the custo)s .ro3era#e .usiness with petitioner .utalle#ed that the >uperfrei#ht Custo)s Bro3era#e Corporation was or#ani+ed with other individuals and dul$ re#isteredwith the >ecurities and "7chan#e Co))ission in 1@;. >he denied that she and petitioner lived as hus.and and wife.ecause the fact was that the$ were still le#all$ )arried to their respective spouses. >he clai)ed to .e the e7clusiveowner of all real personal properties involved in petitioner/s action for partition on the #round that the$ were ac-uiredentirel$ out of her own )one$ and re#istered solel$ in her na)e.4n Nove).er 25, 14, respondent 1led a 0otion for >u))ar$ ,ud#)ent,4 in accordance with Rule =4 of the Rules ofCourt.5 >he contended that su))ar$ 8ud#)ent was proper, .ecause the issues raised in the pleadin#s were sha) andnot #enuine, to witIA.:he )ain issue is D Can plaintiE validl$ clai) the partition andHor pa$)ent of co-o&nership share, accountin# andda)a#es, considerin# that plaintiE and defendant are ad)ittedl$ .oth )arried to their respective spouses understill valid and su.sistin# )arria#es, even assu)in# as clai)ed .$ plaintiE, that the$ lived to#ether as hus.andandwifewithout .ene1t of )arria#eQ Bnother words, cantheparties .econsideredas co-owners of theproperties, under the law, considerin# the present status of the parties as .oth )arried and incapa.le of )arr$in#each other, even assu)in# that the$ lived to#ether as hus.and and wife %Q&B.As a collateral issue, can the plaintiE .e considered as an unre#istered co-owner of the real properties under the:ransfer Certi1cates of :itle dul$ re#istered solel$ in the na)e of defendant 0a. "lvira CastilloQ :his issue is alsotrue as far as the )otor vehicles in -uestion are concerned which are also re#istered in the na)e of defendant.64n the 1rst point, respondent contended that even if she and petitioner actuall$ coha.ited, petitioner could not validl$clai) a part of the su.8ect real and personal properties .ecause Art. 144 of the Civil Code, which provides that the ruleson co-ownership shall #overn the properties ac-uired .$ a )an and a wo)an livin# to#ether as hus.and and wife .ut not)arried, or under a )arria#e which is void ab initio, applies onl$ if the parties are not in an$ wa$ incapacitated to contract)arria#e.7 Bntheparties/ case, their unionsuEeredthele#al i)pedi)ent of aprior su.sistin#)arria#e. :hus, the-uestion of fact .ein# raised .$ petitioner, i.e., whether the$ lived to#ether as hus.and and wife, was irrelevant as no co-ownership could e7ist .etween the).As to the second issue, respondent )aintained that petitioner cannot .e considered an unre#istered co-owner ofthesu.8ect properties on the #round that, since titles to the land are solel$ in her na)e, to #rant petitioner/s pra$er would .eto allow a collateral attac3 on the validit$ of such titles.'etitioner opposed respondent/s 0otion for >u))ar$ ,ud#)ent.8 (e contended that the case presented #enuine factualissues and that Art. 144 of the Civil Code had .een repealed .$ the ?a)il$ Code which now allows, under Art. 14@, ali)ited co-ownership even thou#h a )an and a wo)an livin# to#ether are not capacitated to )arr$ each other. 'etitioneralso asserted that an i)plied trust was constituted when he and respondent a#reed to re#ister the properties solel$ in thelatter/s na)e althou#h the sa)e were ac-uired out of the pro1ts )ade fro) their .ro3era#e .usiness. 'etitioner invo3edthe followin# provisions of the Civil CodeIArt. 1452. Bf two or )ore persons a#ree to purchase propert$ and .$ co))on consent the le#al title is ta3en in thena)e of one of the) for the .ene1t of all, a trust is created .$ force of law in favor of the others in proportion tothe interest of each.Art. 145=. teelhouse Realt$ and *evelop)ent Corporation and "loisa Castillo, who are not parties in the case. :o allowthis to happen will surel$ result to in8ustice and denial of due process of law. . . . 11'etitioner )oved for reconsideration .ut his )otion was denied .$ the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated *ece).er21, 1@. (ence this petition.'etitioner contends thatI %1& the Court of Appeals, in its 1rst decision of Nove).er ;, 12, was correct in appl$in# theRo-uerulin#andinre8ectin#respondent/sclai)thatshewasthesoleownerofthesu.8ectpropertiesandthatthepartition suit was a collateral attac3 on the titlesF %2& the Court of Appeals correctl$ rules in its 1rst decision that Art. 14@of the ?a)il$ Code #overns the co-ownership .etween the parties, hence, the co)plaint for partition is properF %=& withrespect to the properties re#istered in the na)e of >teelhouse Realt$, respondent ad)itted ownership thereof and, at thever$least, thesepropertiescouldsi)pl$.ee7cludedandthepartitionli)itedtothere)ainin#real andpersonalpropertiesF and %4& the Court of Appeals erred in not holdin# that under the Civil Code, there is an i)plied trust in hisfavor. 12:he issue in this case is reall$ whether su))ar$ 8ud#)ent, in accordance with Rule =5 of the Rules of Court, is proper. ;;, half of the amount &hich &aspaid to her in the form of death bene.ts arising from the death of $"), $antiago $> CariBo, plus attorney!s fees in theamount of "E,;;;>;;, and costs of suit>T $ $) )R9%R%9> C4n appeal.$ petitioner to the Court of Appeals, the latter aJr)ed in toto the decision of the trialcourt. (ence, theinstant petition, contendin# thatIB.:(" (4N4RABG" C4CR: 4? A''"AG> GRAV"GT "RR"* BN A??BR0BNG :(" ?BN*BNG> 4? :(" G4C"GRA V>. G>B> B> A''GBCABG" :4 :(" CA>" A: BAR.BB.:(" (4N4RABG" C4CR: 4? A''"AG> GRAV"GT "RR"* BN A''GTBNG "YCB:T BN :(" BN>:AN: CA>" BN>:"A* 4? :("CG"AR AN* CN"YCBV4CAG 0AN*A:" 4? :(" ?A0BGT C4*".BBB.:(" (4N4RABG" C4CR: 4? A''"AG> GRAV"GT "RR"* BN N4: ?BN*BNG :(" CA>" 4? V*A. *" C4N>C"GRA V>G>B> :4 (AV" B""N 04*B?B"*, A0"N*"* AN* "V"N ABAN*4N"* BT :(" "NAC:0"N: 4? :(" ?A0BGT C4*". @Cnder Article46of the?a)il$Code, thea.solutenullit$of aprevious)arria#e)a$.einvo3edfor purposesofre)arria#e on the .asis solel$ of a 1nal 8ud#)ent declarin# such previous )arria#e void. 0eanin#, where the a.solutenullit$ofaprevious)arria#eissou#htto.einvo3edforpurposesofcontractin#asecond)arria#e, thesole.asisaccepta.le in law, for said pro8ected )arria#e to .e free fro) le#al in1r)it$, is a 1nal 8ud#)ent declarin# the previous)arria#e void.(owever, for purposes other than re)arria#e, no 8udicial action is necessar$ to declare a )arria#e ana.solute nullit$. ?or other purposes, such as .ut not li)ited to the deter)ination of heirship, le#iti)ac$ or ille#iti)ac$ of achild, settle)ent of estate, dissolution of propert$ re#i)e, or a cri)inal case for that )atter, the court )a$ pass upon thevalidit$ of )arria#e even after the death of the parties thereto, and even in a suit not directl$ instituted to -uestion thevalidit$ of said )arria#e, so lon# as it is essential to the deter)ination of the case.16 Bn such instances, evidence )ust.eadduced, testi)onial ordocu)entar$, toprovethee7istenceof #roundsrenderin#suchaprevious)arria#eana.solute nullit$. :hese need not .e li)ited solel$ to an earlier 1nal 8ud#)ent of a court declarin# such previous )arria#evoid. 11Bt is clear therefore that the Court is clothed with suJcient authorit$ to pass upon the validit$ of the two )arria#es in thiscase, as the sa)e is essential to the deter)ination of who is ri#htfull$ entitled to the su.8ect Wdeath .ene1tsX of thedeceased.Cnder the Civil Code, which was the law in force when the )arria#e of petitioner >usan Nicdao and the deceased wassole)ni+ed in 12, a valid )arria#e license is a re-uisite of )arria#e, 12 and the a.sence thereof, su.8ect to certaine7ceptions, 1= renders the )arria#e void a. initio. 14Bn the case at .ar, there is no -uestion that the )arria#e of petitioner and the deceased does not fall within the )arria#ese7e)pt fro) the license re-uire)ent. A )arria#e license, therefore, was indispensa.le to the validit$ of their )arria#e.:his notwithstandin#, the records reveal that the )arria#e contract of petitioner and the deceased .ears no )arria#elicense nu).er and, as certi1ed .$ the Gocal Civil Re#istrar of >an ,uan, 0etro 0anila, their oJce has no record of such)arria#e license. Bn Republic v> Court of Appeals, 15 the Court held that such a certi1cation is ade-uate to prove the non-issuance of a )arria#e license. A.sent an$ circu)stance of suspicion, as in the present case, the certi1cation issued .$the local civil re#istrar en8o$s pro.ative value, he .ein# the oJcer char#ed under the law to 3eep a record of all datarelative to the issuance of a )arria#e license.>uch.ein#thecase, thepresu)edvalidit$of the)arria#eof petitioner andthedeceasedhas.eensuJcientl$overco)e. Bt then .eca)e the .urden of petitioner to prove that their )arria#e is valid and that the$ secured the re-uired)arria#e license. Althou#h she was declared in default .efore the trial court, petitioner could have s-uarel$ )et the issueande7plainedthea.senceof a)arria#elicenseinher pleadin#s.eforetheCourt of AppealsandthisCourt. Butpetitionerconvenientl$avoidedtheissueandchosetorefrainfro)pursuin#anar#u)ent that will put hercasein8eopard$. (ence, the presu)ed validit$ of their )arria#e cannot stand.Bt is .e$ondcavil, therefore, that the)arria#e.etweenpetitioner >usanNicdaoandthedeceased, havin#.eensole)ni+ed without the necessar$ )arria#e license, and not .ein# one of the )arria#es e7e)pt fro) the )arria#e licensere-uire)ent, is undou.tedl$ void a. initio.Bt does not follow fro) the fore#oin# dis-uisition, however, that since the )arria#e of petitioner and the deceased isdeclared void a. initio, the Wdeath .ene1tsX under scrutin$ would now .e awarded to respondent >usan Tee. :o reiterate,under Article 46 of the ?a)il$ Code, for purposes of re)arria#e, there )ust 1rst .e a prior 8udicialdeclaration of thenullit$of aprevious)arria#e, thou#hvoid, .eforeapart$canenterintoasecond)arria#e, otherwise, thesecond)arria#e would also .e void.Accordin#l$, the declaration in the instant case of nullit$ of the previous )arria#e of the deceased and petitioner >usanNicdao does not validate the second )arria#e of the deceased with respondent >usan Tee. :he fact re)ains that their)arria#e was sole)ni+ed without 1rst o.tainin# a 8udicial decree declarin# the )arria#e of petitioner >usan Nicdao andthe deceased void. (ence, the )arria#e of respondent >usan Tee and the deceased is, li3ewise, void a. initio.4ne of the eEects of the declaration of nullit$ of )arria#e is the separation of the propert$ of the spouses accordin# to theapplica.lepropert$re#i)e. 12 Considerin#that thetwo)arria#esarevoida.initio, theapplica.lepropert$re#i)ewouldnot.ea.soluteco))unit$orcon8u#al partnershipof propert$, .utrather, .e#overned.$theprovisionsofArticles 14; and 14@ of the ?a)il$ Code on W'ropert$ Re#i)e of Cnions >> F)Gnly the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actualjoint contribution of money, property, orindustry shall be o&ned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions >>>HBn this propert$ re#i)e, the properties ac-uired .$ the parties throu#h their a67ual 8o+n7 6on7*+3u7+on shall .elon# to theco-ownership. usanTeeandthedeceasedis a.i#a)ous )arria#e, havin#.eensole)ni+eddurin#thesu.sistenceof aprevious)arria#ethenpresu)edto.evalid%.etweenpetitioner andthedeceased&, the application of Article 14@ is therefore in order.:hedisputed'142,666.66fro)0BAB KA?'0utual Bene1t Association, Bnc.L, NA'4GC40, Co))utation, 'a#-i.i#, and'CCCB, areclearl$renu)erations, incentivesand.ene1tsfro)#overn)ental a#enciesearned.$thedeceasedasapoliceoJcer. Cnlessrespondent>usanTeepresentsproof tothecontrar$, itcouldnot.esaidthatshecontri.uted)one$, propert$ or industr$ in the ac-uisition of these )onetar$ .ene1ts. (ence, the$ are not owned in co))on .$respondent and the deceased, .ut .elon# to the deceased alone and respondent has no ri#ht whatsoever to clai) thesa)e. B$ intestate succession, the said Wdeath .ene1tsX of the deceased shall pass to his le#al heirs. And, respondent,not .ein# the le#al wife of the deceased is not one of the).As to the propert$ re#i)e of petitioner >usan Nicdao and the deceased, Article 14; of the ?a)il$ Code #overns. :hisarticle applies to unions of parties who are le#all$ capacitated and not .arred .$ an$ i)pedi)ent to contract )arria#e,.ut whose )arria#e is nonetheless void for other reasons, li3e the a.sence of a )arria#e license. Article 14; of the ?a)il$Code reads -Art> +,C> 0hen a man and a &oman &ho are capacitated to marry each other, live e1clusively &ith each other as husbandand &ife &ithout the bene.t of marriage or under a void marriage, their &ages and salaries shall be o&ned by them inequal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their &or/ or industry shall be governed by the rules onco-o&nership>n the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired &hile they lived together shall be presumed to have beenobtained by their joint e3orts, &or/ or industry, and shall be o&ned by them in equal shares> For purposes of this Article, aparty &ho did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributedjointly in the acquisition thereof if the former!s e3orts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of thehousehold>1 1 10hen only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-o&nershipshall be forfeited in favor of their common children> n case of default of or &aiver by any or all of the common children ortheir descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants> n the absence ofdescendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party> n all cases, the forfeiture shall ta/e place upon termination ofthe cohabitation>Bn contrast to Article 14@, under the fore#oin# article, wa#es and salaries earned .$ either part$ durin# the coha.itationshall .e owned .$ the parties in e-ual shares and will .e divided e-uall$ .etween the), even if onl$ one part$ earned thewa#es and the other did not contri.ute thereto. 1 Confor)a.l$, even if the disputed Wdeath .ene1tsX were earned .$ thedeceased alone as a #overn)ent e)plo$ee, Article 14; creates a co-ownership in respect thereto, entitlin# the petitionerto share one-half thereof. As there is no alle#ation of .ad faith in the present case, .oth parties of the 1rst )arria#e arepresu)ed to .e in #ood faith. :hus, one-half of the su.8ect Wdeath .ene1tsX under scrutin$ shall #o to the petitioner asher share in the propert$ re#i)e, and the other half pertainin# to the deceased shall pass .$, intestate succession, to hisle#al heirs, na)el$, his children with >usan Nicdao.Bn aJr)in# the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals relied on the case of 2da> de Consuegra v> 5overnment$ervice nsurance $ystem, 26 where the Court awarded one-half of the retire)ent .ene1ts of the deceased to the 1rstwife and the other half, to the second wife, holdin# thatIW>>> F$Gince the defendant!s .rst marriage has not been dissolved or declared void the conjugal partnership established bythat marriage has not ceased> (or has the .rst &ife lost or relinquished her status as putative heir of her husband underthe ne& CivilCode,entitled to share inhis estate upon hisdeath should she survive him> Consequently,&hether asconjugal partner in a still subsisting marriage or as such putative heir she has an interest in the husband!s share in theproperty here in dispute>>>>H And &ith respect to the right of the second &ife, this Court observed that although the secondmarriage can be presumed to be void ab initio as it &as celebrated &hile the .rst marriage &as still subsisting, still thereis need for judicial declaration of such nullity> And inasmuch as the conjugal partnership formed by the second marriage&as dissolved before judicialdeclaration of its nullity, IFtGhe only just and equitable solution in this case &ould be torecogniJe the right of the second &ife to her share of one-half in the property acquired by her and her husband, andconsider the other half as pertaining to the conjugal partnership of the .rst marriage>H :+Bt should .e stressed, however, that the aforecited decision is pre)ised on the rule which re-uires a prior and separate8udicial declaration of nullit$ of )arria#e. :his is the reason wh$ in the said case, the Court deter)ined the ri#hts of theparties in accordance with their e7istin# propert$ re#i)e.Bn 9omingo v> Court of Appeals, 22 however, the Court, construin# Article 46 of the ?a)il$ Code, clari1ed that a prior andseparate declaration of nullit$ of a )arria#e is an all i)portant condition precedent onl$ for purposes of re)arria#e. :hatis, if a part$ who is previousl$ )arried wishes to contract a second )arria#e, he or she has to o.tain 1rst a 8udicial decreedeclarin# the 1rst )arria#e void, .efore he or she could contract said second )arria#e, otherwise the second )arria#ewould.evoid. :hesa)eruleappliesevenif the1rst)arria#eispatentl$void.ecausethepartiesarenotfreetodeter)ine for the)selves the validit$ or invalidit$ or their )arria#e. (owever, for purposes other than to re)arr$, li3e for1lin# a case for collection of su) of )one$ anchored on a )arria#e clai)ed to .e valid, no prior and separate 8udicialdeclaration of nullit$ is necessar$. All that a part$ has to do is to present evidence, testi)onial or docu)entar$, that wouldprovethat the)arria#efro)whichhisor her ri#htsNowisinfact valid. :hereupon, thecourt, if )aterial tothedeter)ination of the issues .efore it, will rule on the status of the )arria#e involved and proceed to deter)ine the ri#htsof the parties in accordance with the applica.le laws and 8urisprudence. :hus, in (iBal v> 'ayadog, 2= the Court e7plainedIFTGhe court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as itis essential to the determination of the case> This is &ithout prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case> 0hen suchneed arises, a .nal judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry> The clauseIon the basis of a .nal judgment declaring such previous marriage voidH in Article ,; of the Family Code connoted thatsuch .nal judgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage>"* and >": A>B*". :he co)plaint in Civil Case No. Y-=-1@2=2, ishere.$ *B>0B>>"*. No pronounce)ent as to costs.1Owphi1.nPt-O ORDERED.G.R. No. 1'(611Jun0 1(, 2((%JACIN,O -AG#ID, petitioner, vs.!ON. CO#R, O. APPEAL-, ,!E REGIONAL ,RIAL CO#R,, /RANC! 9&, /OAC, "ARIND#1#E AND GINA -. REY, respondents.YNARE-5-AN,IAGO, J.2:he re#i)e of li)ited co-ownership of propert$ #overnin# the union of parties who are not le#all$ capacitated to )arr$each other, .ut who nonetheless live to#ether as hus.and and wife, applies to properties ac-uired durin# saidcoha.itation in proportion to their respective contri.utions. Co-ownership will onl$ .e up to the e7tent of the proven actualcontri.ution of )one$, propert$ or industr$. A.sent proof of thee7tentthereof, their contri.utions and correspondin#shares shall .e presu)ed to .e e-ual.1>eventeen-$ear old Gina >. Re$ was )arried,2 .ut separated de facto fro) her hus.and, when she )et petitioner ,acinto>a#uid in 0arindu-ue, so)eti)e in ,ul$ 1@;.= After a .rief courtship, the two decided to coha.it as hus.and and wife ina house .uilt on a lot owned .$ ,acintoMs father.4 :heir coha.itation was not .lessed with an$ children. ,acinto )ade alivin#asthepatronoftheir1shin#vessel !>a#uidBrothers.!5 Gina, ontheotherhand, wor3edasa1shdealer, .utdecided to wor3 as an entertainer in ,apan fro) 12 to 14 when her relationship with ,acintoMs relatives turned sour.(er periodic a.sence, however, did not e.. awa$ the conNict with petitionerMs relatives. Bn 12, the couple decided toseparate and end up their -$ear coha.itation.24n ,anuar$ , 1;, private respondent 1led a co)plaint for 'artition and Recover$ of 'ersonal 'ropert$ with Receivershipa#ainst the petitioner with the Re#ional :rial Court of Boac, 0arindu-ue. >he alle#ed that fro) her salar$ of [1,566.66 a)onth as entertainer in ,apan, she was a.le to contri.ute ';6,666.66 in the co)pletion of their un1nished house. Also,fro) her own earnin#s as an entertainer and 1sh dealer, she was a.le to ac-uire and accu)ulate appliances, pieces offurniture and household eEects, with a total value of '111,=;5.66. >he pra$ed that she .e declared the sole owner ofthese personal properties and that the a)ount of ';6,666.66, representin# her contri.ution to the construction of theirhouse, .e rei).ursed to her.'rivate respondent testi1ed that she deposited part of her earnin#s in her savin#s account with ?irst Allied *evelop)entBan3.; (er 'ass Boo3 shows that as of 0a$ 2=, 15, she had a .alance of '21,642.6@.@ >he further stated that she had atotal of '=5,425.66 share inthe 8oint account deposit which she and the petitioner )aintained with the sa)e.an3.16 Gina declared that said deposits were spent for the purchase of construction )aterials, appliances and otherpersonal properties.11Bn his answer12 to the co)plaint, petitioner clai)ed that the e7penses for the construction of their house were defra$edsolel$ fro) his inco)e as a captain of their 1shin# vessel. (e averred that private respondentMs )ea#er inco)e as 1shdealer rendered her una.le to contri.ute in the construction of said house. Besides, sellin# 1sh was a )ere pasti)e toherF as such, she was contented with the s)all -uantit$ of 1sh allotted to her fro) his 1shin# trips. 'etitioner furthercontended that Gina did not wor3 continuousl$ in ,apan fro) 12 to 14, .ut onl$ for a 2-)onth duration each $ear.upre)e Court Circular No. 1-@.1=4n 0a$ 22, 1;, petitioner 1led a )otion for reconsideration14 of the 0a$ 21, 1; order, which was denied on ,une 2,1;, and private respondent was allowed to present evidence e1 parte.15 'etitioner 1led another )otion forreconsideration .ut the sa)e was also denied on 4cto.er @, 1;.4n ,ul$ 15, 1@, a decision12 was rendered in favor of private respondent, the dispositive portion of which readsI4 4R*"R"*.1;4n appeal, said decision was aJr)ed .$ the Court of AppealsF however, the award of '56,666.66 as )oral da)a#es wasdeleted for lac3 of .asis.1@ :he appellate court ruled that the propriet$ of the order which declared the petitioner as indefault .eca)e )oot and acade)ic in view of the eEectivit$ of the 1; Rules of Civil 'rocedure. Bt e7plained that thenew rules now re-uire the 1lin# of a pre-trial .rief and the defendantMs non-co)pliance therewith entitles the plaintiE topresent evidence e1 parte.Both parties 1led )otions for reconsideration which were deniedF hence, petitioner 1led the instant petition .ased on thefollowin# assi#ned errorsIA.:(" (4N4RABG" C4CR: 4? A''"AG> C400B:K:"*L A R"V"R>BBG" "RR4R BN A''GTBNG R":R4AC:BV"GT :(" 1;RCG"> 4? CBVBG 'R4C"*CR" BN :(" 'R">"N: CA>" AN* (4G*BNG :(" ?BR>: A>>BGN"* "RR4R :("R"BN 044:AN* ACA*"0BC :(C>, ?ABG"* :4 RCG" 4N :(" 'R4'RB":T 4? :(" :RBAG C4CR:M> R"?C>AG :4 >": A>B*" :("4R*"R 4? *"?ACG: *C" :4 0B>:AA" AN*H4R "\CC>ABG" N"GGBG"NC" C400B::"* BT '":B:B4N"R.B.:(" (4N4RABG" C4CR: 4? A''"AG> C400B:K:"*L A R"V"R>BBG" "RR4R BN R"GTBNG 4N :(" ?AC:CAG ?BN*BNG>4? :(" :RBAG C4CR: '4N*"N: 4NGT "\ 'AR:".1:he issues for resolution areI %1& whether or not the trial court erred in allowin# private respondent to present evidence e1parteF and %2& whether or not the trial courtMs decision is supported .$ evidence.Cnder >ection 2, Rule 1@ of the 1; Rules of Civil 'rocedure, the failure of the defendant to 1le a pre-trial .rief shall havethe sa)e eEect as failure to appear at the pre-trial, i>e., the plaintiE )a$ present his evidence e1 parteand the court shallrender 8ud#)ent on the .asis thereof.26 :he re)ed$ of the defendant is to 1le a )otion for reconsideration21 showin#that his failure to 1le a pre-trial .rief was due to fraud, accident, )ista3e or e7cusa.le ne#lect.22 :he )otion need notreall$stressthefactthatthedefendanthasavalidand)eritoriousdefense.ecausehisanswerwhichcontainshisdefenses is alread$ on record.2=Bn the case at .ar, petitioner insists that his failure to 1le a pre-trial .rief is 8usti1ed .ecause he was not represented .$counsel. :his8usti1cationisnot, however, suJcient toset asidetheorder directin#privaterespondent topresentevidence e1 parte, inas)uch as the petitioner chose at his own ris3 not to .e represented .$ counsel. "ven without theassistance of a law$er, petitioner was a.le to 1le a )otion for e7tension to 1le answer,24 the re-uired answer statin#thereinthespecial andaJr)ativedefenses,25 andseveral other )otions.22 Bf it weretruethat petitioner didnotunderstand the i)port of the April 2=, 1; order directin# hi) to 1le a pre-trial .rief, he could have in-uired fro) thecourt or 1led a )otion for e7tension of ti)e to 1le the .rief. Bnstead, he waited until 0a$ 22, 1;, or 14 da$s fro) hisalle#ed receipt of the April 2=, 1; order .efore he 1led a )otion as3in# the court to e7cuse his failure to 1le a .rief. 're-trial rules arenot to.e.elittledor dis)issed.ecausetheir non-o.servance)a$result inpre8udicetoapart$Mssu.stantive ri#hts. Gi3e all rules, the$ should .e followed e7cept onl$ for the )ost persuasive of reasons when the$ )a$.e rela7ed to relieve a liti#ant of an in8ustice not co))ensurate with the de#ree of his thou#htlessness in not co)pl$in#with the procedure prescri.ed.2;Bn the instant case, the fact that petitioner was not assisted .$ a law$er is not a persuasive reason to rela7 the applicationof the rules. :here is nothin# in the Constitution which )andates that a part$ in a non-cri)inal proceedin# .e represented.$ counsel and that the a.sence of such representation a)ounts to a denial of due process. :he assistance of law$ers,while desira.le, is not indispensa.le. :he le#al profession is not en#rafted in the due process clause such that without theparticipation of its )e).ers the safe#uard is dee)ed i#nored or violated.2@(owever, the Court of Appeals erred in rulin# that the eEectivit$ of the 1; Rules of Civil 'rocedure, speci1call$, >ection2, Rule 1@ thereof, rendered )oot and acade)ic the issue of whether or not the plaintiE )a$ .e allowed to presentevidence e1 parte for failure of the defendant to 1le a pre-trial .rief. FernandeJ,=2 which involved the issue of co-ownership of propertiesac-uired .$ the parties to a .i#a)ous )arria#e and an adulterous relationship, respectivel$, we ruled that proof of actualcontri.ution in the ac-uisition of the propert$ is essential. :he clai) of co-ownership of the petitioners therein who wereparties to the .i#a)ous and adulterous union is without .asis .ecause the$ failed to su.stantiate their alle#ation thatthe$ contri.uted )one$ in the purchase of the disputed properties. Also inAdriano v> Court of Appeals,=; we ruled that thefact that the controverted propert$ was titled in the na)e of the parties to an adulterous relationship is not suJcientproof of co-ownership a.sent evidence of actual contri.ution in the ac-uisition of the propert$.As in other civil cases, the .urden of proof rests upon the part$ who, as deter)ined .$ the pleadin#s or the nature of thecase, asserts an aJr)ative issue. Contentions )ust .e proved .$ co)petent evidence and reliance )ust .e had on thestren#th of the part$Ms own evidence and not upon the wea3ness of the opponentMs defense.=@ :his applies with )orevi#or where, as in the instant case, the plaintiE was allowed to present evidence e1 parte> :he plaintiE is notauto)aticall$ entitled to the relief pra$ed for. :he law #ives the defendant so)e )easure of protection as the plaintiE)ust still prove the alle#ations in the co)plaint. ?avora.le relief can .e #ranted onl$ after the court is convinced that thefacts proven .$ the plaintiE warrant such relief.= Bndeed, the part$ alle#in# a fact has the .urden of provin# it and a)ere alle#ation is not evidence.46Bn the case at .ar, the controvers$ centers on the house and personal properties of the parties. 'rivate respondent alle#edin her co)plaint that she contri.uted ';6,666.66 for the co)pletion of their house. (owever, nowhere in her testi)on$did she specif$ the e7tent of her contri.ution. . Re$ is declared co-owner of petitioner ,acinto >a#uid in thecontroverted house to the e7tent of '11,41=.66 and personal properties to the e7tent of '55,2@;.56. 'etitioner is orderedto rei).urse the a)ount of '2;,166.56 to private respondent, failin# which the house shall .e sold at pu.lic auction tosatisf$ private respondentMs clai).-O ORDERED.G.R. No. 169698 No:0;30* 29, 2((6L#PO A,IEN$A, 'etitioner, vs.YOLANDA DE CA-,RO, Respondent.* " C B > B 4 NGARCIA, J.:Assailed and sou#ht to .e set aside in this petition for review on certiorari is the *ecision1 dated April 2, 2665 of theCourt of Appeals %CA& in CA-G.R. CV No. 2;;, as reiterated in its Resolution2 of >epte).er 12, 2665, reversin# an earlierdecision of the Re#ional:rialCourt %R:C& of 0a3atiCit$, Branch 21, in an action for ,udicial'artition of Real'ropert$thereat co))enced .$ the herein petitioner Gupo Atien+a a#ainst respondent Tolanda de Castro.:he factsI>o)eti)e in 1@=, petitioner Gupo Atien+a, then the 'resident and General 0ana#er of "nrico >hippin# Corporation and"urasian0ariti)eCorporation, hiredtheservices of respondent TolandaC. *eCastroas accountant for thetwocorporations.Bn the course of ti)e, the relationship .etween Gupo and Tolanda .eca)e inti)ate. *espite Gupo .ein# a )arried )an, heand Tolanda eventuall$ lived to#ether in consortiu) .e#innin# the later part of 1@=. 4ut of their union, two children were.orn. (owever, after the .irth of their second child, their relationship turned sour until the$ parted wa$s.4n 0a$ 2@, 12, Gupo 1led in the R:C of 0a3ati Cit$ a co)plaint a#ainst Tolanda for the 8udicial partition .etween the)of a parcel of land with i)prove)ents located in Bel-Air >u.division, 0a3ati Cit$ and covered .$ :ransfer Certi1cate of:itle No. 14;@2@ of the Re#istr$ of *eeds of 0a3ati Cit$. Bn his co)plaint, doc3eted in said court as Civil Case No. 2-142=,Gupo alle#ed that the su.8ect propert$ was ac-uired durin# his union with Tolanda as co))on-law hus.and and wife,hence the propert$ is co-owned .$ the)."la.oratin#, Gupo averred in his co)plaint that the propert$ in -uestion was ac-uired .$ Tolanda so)eti)e in 1@; usin#his e7clusive funds and that the title thereto was transferred .$ the seller in TolandaMs na)e without his 3nowled#e andconsent. (e did not interpose an$ o.8ection thereto .ecause at the ti)e, their aEair was still thrivin#. Bt was onl$ aftertheir separation and his receipt of infor)ation that Tolanda allowed her new live-in partner to live in the disputed propert$,when he de)anded his share thereat as a co-owner.Bn her answer, Tolanda denied GupoMs alle#ations. Accordin# to her, she ac-uired the sa)e propert$ for :wo 0illion >i7(undred :housand 'esos %'2,266,666.66& usin# her e7clusive funds. >he insisted havin# .ou#ht it thru her own savin#sand earnin#s as a .usinesswo)an.Bn a decision3 dated *ece).er 11, 2666, the trial court rendered 8ud#)ent for Gupo .$ declarin# the contested propert$as owned in co))on .$ hi) and Tolanda and orderin# its partition .etween the two in e-ual shares, thusI"* and >": A>B*" . :he su.8ect propert$ ishere.$ declared to .e e7clusivel$ owned .$ defendant-appellant Tolanda C. *e Castro. No costs.>4 4R*"R"*.Bn decreein# the disputed propert$ as e7clusivel$ owned .$ Tolanda, the CA ruled that under the provisions of Article 14@of the ?a)il$ Code vis-^-vis the evidence on record and attendin# circu)stances, TolandaMs clai) of sole ownership is)eritorious, asithas.eensu.stantiated.$co)petentevidence. :otheCA, Gupofailedtooverco)ethe.urdenofprovin# his alle#ation that the su.8ect propert$ was purchased .$ Tolanda thru his e7clusive funds.epte).er 12, 2665, 5 Gupo is nowwiththisCourt viathepresent recoursear#uin#that pursuant toArticle1446 of theCivil Code, hewasinnowa$.urdened to prove that he contri.uted to the ac-uisition of the su.8ect propert$ .ecause with or without the contri.ution.$ either partner, he is dee)ed a co-owner thereof, addin# that under Article 4@47 of Civil Code, as lon# as the propert$was ac-uired .$ either or .oth of the) durin# their e7tra)arital union, such propert$ would .e le#all$ owned .$ the) inco))on and #overned .$ the rules on co-ownership, which appl$ in default of contracts, or special provisions. B 4 NP#NO, C.J.:t. 0orit+ (otel. ,a).rich .efriended respondent and as3ed her totutor hi) in "n#lish. Bn dire need of additional inco)e to support her children, respondent a#reed. :he tutorials were heldin AntoniettaMs residence at a s-uattersM area in Gorordo Avenue.,a).rich and respondent fell in love and decided to live to#ether in a rented house in (ernan Cortes, 0andaue Cit$. Gater,the$ transferred to their own house and lots at A#ro-0acro >u.division, Ca.ancalan, 0andaue Cit$. Bn the Contracts to >elldated Nove).er 1@, 1@51 and 0arch 16, 1@22 coverin# the properties, ,a).rich and respondent were referred to asthe .u$ers. A *eed of A.solute >ale dated Nove).er 12, 1@;3 was li3ewise issued in their favor. (owever, when the*eed of A.solute >ale was presented for re#istration .efore the Re#ister of *eeds, re#istration was refused on the #roundthat ,a).rich was an alien and could not ac-uire aliena.le lands of the pu.lic do)ain. Conse-uentl$, ,a).richMs na)ewas erased fro) the docu)ent. But it could .e noted that his si#nature re)ained on the left hand )ar#in of pa#e 1,.eside respondentMs si#nature as .u$er on pa#e =, and at the .otto) of pa#e 4 which is the last pa#e. :ransfer Certi1cateof :itle %:C:& Nos. 24;6, 24;1 and 24;2 over the properties were issued in respondentMs na)e alone.,a).rich also for)all$ adopted respondentMs two sons in >p. 'roc. No. =-0AN,4 and per *ecision of the Re#ional :rialCourt of 0andaue Cit$ dated 0a$ 5, 1@@.5(owever, the id$ll lasted onl$ until April 11. B$ then, respondent found a new .o$friend while ,a).rich .e#an to livewith another wo)an in *anao Cit$. ,a).rich supported respondentMs sons for onl$ two )onths after the .rea3 up.,a).rich )et petitioner Ca)ilo ?. Borro)eo so)eti)e in 1@2. 'etitioner was en#a#ed in the real estate .usiness. (e also.uilt and repaired speed.oats as a ho..$. Bn 1@, ,a).rich purchased an en#ine and so)e accessories for his .oat fro)petitioner, for which he .eca)e inde.ted to the latter for a.out '156,666.66. :o pa$ for his de.t, he sold his ri#hts andinterests in the A#ro-0acro properties to petitioner for '256,666, as evidenced .$ a !*eed of A.solute>aleHAssi#n)ent.!6 4n ,ul$ 22, 11, when petitioner sou#ht to re#ister the deed of assi#n)ent, he discovered that titlestothethreelotshave.eentransferredinthena)eof respondent, andthat thesu.8ect propert$hasalread$.een)ort#a#ed.4n Au#ust 2, 11, petitioner 1led a co)plaint a#ainst respondent for recover$ of real propert$ .efore the Re#ional :rialCourt of 0andaue Cit$. 'etitioner alle#ed that the Contracts to >ell dated Nove).er 1@, 1@5 and 0arch 16, 1@2 and the*eed of A.solute >ale dated Nove).er 12, 1@; over the properties which identi1ed .oth ,a).rich and respondent as.u$ers do not reNect the true a#ree)ent of the parties since respondent did not pa$ a sin#le centavo of the purchaseprice and was not in fact a .u$erF that it was ,a).rich alone who paid for the properties usin# his e7clusive fundsF that,a).rich was the real and a.solute owner of the propertiesF and, that petitioner ac-uired a.solute ownership .$ virtue ofthe *eed of A.solute >aleHAssi#n)ent dated ,ul$ 11, 11 which ,a).rich e7ecuted in his favor.BnherAnswer,respondent.eliedthealle#ationthatshe didnotpa$asin#lecentavo of thepurchase price.4nthecontrar$, she clai)ed that she !solel$ and e7clusivel$ used her own personal funds to defra$ and pa$ for the purchaseprice of the su.8ect lots in -uestion,! and that ,a).rich, .ein# an alien, was prohi.ited to ac-uire or own real propert$ inthe 'hilippines.Atthetrial,respondent presentedevidence showin#heralle#ed 1nancial capacit$ to .u$ thedisputed propert$ with)one$ fro) a supposed copra .usiness. 'etitioner, in turn, presented ,a).rich as his witness and docu)entar$ evidenceshowin# the su.stantial salaries which ,a).rich received while still e)plo$ed .$ the Austrian co)pan$, >i))erin#-Gra+'an3er A.G.Bn its decision, the court a -uo foundD"vidence on hand clearl$ show that at the ti)e of the purchase and ac-uisition of KtheL properties under liti#ation thato that, ,a).richMs 1nancialcapacit$ to ac-uire and purchase the properties . . . is not disputed.77 7 74n the other hand, evidence . . . clearl$ show that .efore defendant )et ,a).rich so)eti)e in the latter part of 1@4, shewas onl$ wor3in# as a waitress at the >t. 0orit+ (otel with an inco)e of '1,666.66 a )onth and was . . . rentin# and livin#onl$ in . . . KaL roo) at . . . KaL s-uatter area at Gorordo Ave., Ce.u Cit$F that ,a).rich too3 pit$ of her and the situation ofher children that he oEered her a .etter life which she readil$ accepted. Bn fact, this )isera.le 1nancial situation of hersand her two children . . . are all stated and reNected in the Child >tud$ Report dated April 26, 1@= %"7hs. !G! and !G-1!&which facts she supplied to the >ocial CRA 22= citin# Ariven3o vs. Re#ister of *eedsof 0anila, ; 'hils. 421F Cnited Church Board for e.astian, 15 >CRA 442, citin# the case of >arsosaVda. *e Barso.ia vs. Cuenco, 11= >CRA 54;F :e8ido vs. 9a)aco)a, 1=@ >CRA ;@&. Bn the case at .ar, the title of thesu.8ect propert$ is not in the na)e of ,a).rich .ut in the na)e of defendant-appellant. :hus, ,a).rich could not havetransferred a propert$ he has no title thereto.13'etitionerMs )otion for reconsideration was denied.(ence, this petition for review.'etitioner assi#ns the followin# errorsIB. :(" (4N4RABG" C4CR: 4? A''"AG> >"RB4C>GT "RR"* BN *B>R"GAR*BNG R">'4N*"N:M> ,C*BCBAG A*0B>>B4N AN*4:("R 4V"R(B' 4? :("'R4'"R:B"> BN YC">:B4N A> ?4CN* BT :(" (4N4RABG" :RBAG C4CR:.BB. :(" (4N4RABG" C4CR: 4? A''"AG> >"RB4C>GT "RR"* BN (4G*BNG :(A: ,A0BRBC( (A> N4 :B:G" :4 :("'R4'"R:B"> BN YC">:B4N AN* 0AT N4: :("R"?4R" :RAN>?"R AN* A>>BGN ANT RBG(:> AN* BN:"R">:> BN?AV4R 4? '":B:B4N"R.BBB. :(" (4N4RABG" C4CR: 4? A''"AG> >"RB4C>GT "RR"* BN R"V"R>BNG :(" 4N"* *"CB>B4N4?:(":RBAGC4CR:AN*BNB0'4>BNG*4CBG"C4>:>AGABN>:("R"BN'":B:B4N"R%:("N, 'GABN:B??-A''"GG""&.14?irst, who purchased the su.8ect propertiesQ:heevidenceclearl$shows, aspointedout.$thetrial court, who.etweenrespondentand,a).richpossessesthe1nancial capacit$ to ac-uire the properties in dispute. At the ti)e of the ac-uisition of the properties in 1@5 to 1@2,,a).rich was #ainfull$ e)plo$ed at >i))erin#-Gra+ 'an3er A.G., anAustrian co)pan$. (ewas earnin# an esti)ated)onthl$ salar$ of '56,666.66. :hen, ,a).rich was assi#ned to >$ria for al)ost one $ear where his )onthl$ salar$ wasappro7i)atel$ '6,666.66.4ntheotherhand, respondent wase)plo$edasawaitressfro)1@4to1@5witha)onthl$salar$of not )orethan '1,666.66. Bn 1@2, when the parcels of land were ac-uired, she was une)plo$ed, as ad)itted .$ her durin# the pre-trial conference. (er alle#ations of inco)e fro) a copra .usiness were unsu.stantiated. :he supposed copra .usiness wasactuall$ the .usiness of her )other and their fa)il$, with ten si.lin#s. >he has no license to sell copra, and had not 1ledan$ inco)e ta7 return. All the )otori+ed .ancas of her )other were lost to 1re, and the last one left standin# was alread$scrap. ?urther, the Child >tud$ Report15 su.)itted .$ the *epart)ent of >ocial t. 0orit+ Restaurant in1@4. At 1rst she had no pro.le) with )one$ .ecause )ost of the custo)ers of >t. 0orit+ are %sic& forei#ners and the$#ave#oodtips.ut towardstheendof 1@4therewereno)oreforei#nersco)in#.ecauseof thesituationinthe'hilippines at that ti)e. (er 1nancial pro.le) started then. >he was even rentin# a s)all roo) in a s-uatters area inGorordo Ave., Ce.u Cit$. Bt was durin# her ti)e of #reat 1nancial distress that she )et tud$ Report17 further disclosed thatIK,a).richL was then at the Restaurant of >t. 0orit+ when he saw Antonietta *escallar, one of the waitresses of the saidRestaurants. (e )ade friends with the #irl and as3ed her to tutor hi) in KtheL "n#lish lan#ua#e. Antonietta accepted theoEer .ecause she was in need of additional inco)e to support KherL 2 $oun# children who were a.andoned .$ their father.:heir session was a#reed to .e scheduled ever$ afternoon at the residence of Antonietta in the s-uatters area in GorordoAvenue, Ce.u Cit$. :he Austrian was o.servin# the situation of the fa)il$ particularl$ the children who were)alnourished. Afterafew)onthssessions, 0r. ,a).richoEeredtotransferthefa)il$intoadecent place. (etoldAntonietta that the place is not #ood for the children. Antonietta who was )isera.le and 1nanciall$ distressed at that ti)eaccepted the oEer for the sa3e of the children.18?urther, the followin# additional pieces of evidence point to ,a).rich as the source of fund used to purchase the threeparcels of land, and to construct the house thereonI%1& Respondent *escallar herself aJr)ed under oath, durin# her re-direct e7a)ination and durin# theproceedin#s for the adoption of her )inor children, that ,a).rich was the owner of the properties in -uestion, .utthat his na)e was deleted in the *eed of A.solute >ale .ecause of le#al constraints. Nonetheless, his si#naturere)ained in the deed of sale, where he si#ned as .u$er.%2& :he )one$ used to pa$ the su.8ect parcels of land in install)ents was in postdated chec3s issued .$ ,a).rich.Respondent has never opened an$ account with an$ .an3. Receipts of the install)ent pa$)ents were also in thena)e of ,a).rich and respondent.%=& Bn 1@2-1@;, respondent lived in >$ria with ,a).rich and her two children for ten )onths, where she wasco)pletel$ under the support of ,a).rich.%4& ,a).riche7ecutedaGast ": A>B*". :he *ecision of the Re#ional :rial Court of0andaue Cit$ in Civil Case No. 0AN-114@ is R"BN>:A:"*.>4 4R*"R"*.