Dear PAO,
My aunt claims that the sale made by our grandfather in 1975 in favor of my mother over a certain land was invalid. According to my aunt, when my grandmother died, the property passed to the surviving spouse and her heirs, so her consent was essential to the sale. My mother said that the land was the exclusive property of our grandfather, so he could sell it to anyone. My aunt raised another issue and said that the land was registered in the name of my grandfather, with the description that he was married to my grandmother. She added that such an entry would give rise to the presumption that the property belongs to the conjugal partnership; hence, any disposition after the death of my grandmother will essentially require her consent as a co-owner. Is her claim correct?
Wilson
Dear Wilson,
The disposition of the land was made in 1975, so it can be assumed that the Old Civil Code of the Philippines applies to the property relations of your grandparents. Pursuant to Article 160 of the same law, “All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.”
Get the latest news
delivered to your inbox
Sign up for The Manila Times newsletters
This provision of the law was carried over to Article 93 and Article 116 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
Thus, all properties are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless the party alleging otherwise can present proof that it is his/her exclusive property. Registration and the presumption that the land belongs to the conjugal partnership are two different things. The registration of the land in the name of your grandfather, who was described as being married to your grandmother, is not proof that the same belongs to the conjugal partnership. This finds support in the case entitled Jocson v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., GR L-55322, Feb. 16, 1989, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Leo Medialdea, stated:
“It is thus clear that before Moises Jocson may validly invoke the presumption under Article 160, he must first present proof that the disputed properties were acquired during the marriage of Emilio Jocson and Alejandra Poblete. The certificates of title, however, upon which petitioner rests his claim are insufficient. The fact that the properties were registered in the name of ‘Emilio Jocson, married to Alejandra Poblete’ is no proof that the properties were acquired during the spouses’ coverture. Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts. It is well settled that registration does not confer title but merely confirms one already existing (See Torela v. Torela, supra). It may be that the properties under dispute were acquired by Emilio Jocson when he was still a bachelor but were registered only after his marriage to Alejandra Poblete, which explains why he was described in the certificates of title as married to the latter.”
Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, anyone claiming that the subject land belongs to the conjugal partnership of your grandparents must first prove that the same was acquired during the marriage of your grandparents. The certificate of title in the name of your grandfather that he was married to your grandmother is not enough proof that the property was acquired during the marriage; hence, the presumption that such land forms part of the conjugal properties of your grandparents will not arise.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]
