JACINTO SAGUID, Petitioner, v. HON.

COURT Property with Receivership against the petitioner

OF APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL with the Regional Trial Court of Boac, Marinduque.
COURT, BRANCH 94, BOAC, MARINDUQUE She alleged that from her salary of $1,500.00 a
and GINA S. REY, Respondents. G.R. No. month as entertainer in Japan, she was able to
150611, FIRST DIVISION, June 10, 2003, contribute P70,000.00 in the completion of their
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. unfinished house. Also, from her own earnings as an
entertainer and fish dealer, she was able to acquire
and accumulate appliances, pieces of furniture and
FACTS: household effects, with a total value of P111,375.00.
She prayed that she be declared the sole owner of
Seventeen-year old Gina S. Rey was married, but these personal properties and that the amount of
separated de facto from her husband, when she met P70,000.00, representing her contribution to the
petitioner Jacinto Saguid in Marinduque, sometime construction of their house, be reimbursed to her.
in July 1987. After a brief courtship, the two decided
to cohabit as husband and wife in a house built on a Private respondent testified that she deposited part
lot owned by Jacinto’s father. Their cohabitation of her earnings in her savings account with First
was not blessed with any children. Jacinto made a Allied Development Bank. Her Pass Book shows
living as the patron of their fishing vessel "Saguid that as of May 23, 1995, she had a balance of of
Brothers." Gina, on the other hand, worked as a fish P21,046.08. She further stated that she had a total of
dealer, but decided to work as an entertainer in P35,465.00 share in the joint account deposit which
Japan from 1992 to 1994 when her relationship with she and the petitioner maintained with the same
Jacinto’s relatives turned sour. Her periodic absence, bank. Gina declared that said deposits were spent for
however, did not ebb away the conflict with the purchase of construction materials, appliances
petitioner’s relatives. In 1996, the couple decided to and other personal properties.
separate and end up their 9-year cohabitation.
In his answer to the complaint, petitioner claimed
On January 9, 1997, private respondent filed a that the expenses for the construction of their house
complaint for Partition and Recovery of Personal were defrayed solely from his income as a captain of
their fishing vessel. He averred that private RTC ordered, among others, Jacinto Saguid to return
respondent’s meager income as fish dealer rendered and/or reimburse to the plaintiff the amount of
her unable to contribute in the construction of said P70,000.00 which the latter actually contributed to
house. Besides, selling fish was a mere pastime to the construction and completion of the house.
her; as such, she was contented with the small
quantity of fish allotted to her from his fishing trips. On appeal, said decision was affirmed by the Court
Petitioner further contended that Gina did not work of Appeals; however, the award of P50,000.00 as
continuously in Japan from 1992 to 1994, but only moral damages was deleted for lack of basis. The
for a 6-month duration each year. When their house appellate court ruled that the propriety of the order
was repaired and improved sometime in 1995–1996, which declared the petitioner as in default became
private respondent did not share in the expenses moot and academic in view of the effectivity of the
because her earnings as entertainer were spent on the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It explained that the
daily needs and business of her parents. From his new rules now require the filing of a pre-trial brief
income in the fishing business, he claimed to have and the defendant’s non-compliance therewith
saved a total of P130,000.00, P75,000.00 of which entitles the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte.
was placed in a joint account deposit with private
ISSUE:
Respondent. This savings, according to petitioner
was spent in purchasing the disputed personal Whether or not the CA is correct when it affirmed
properties. the decision of RTC that private respondent’s share
of P70,000.00 shall be reimbursed. (NO)
On May 21, 1997, the trial court declared the
petitioner as in default for failure to file a pre-trial RULING:
brief. Petitioner filed for two motions of
reconsideration, both were denied. Private It is not disputed that Gina and Jacinto were not
respondent was allowed to present evidence ex capacitated to marry each other because the former
parte. was validly married to another man at the time of
her cohabitation with the latter. Their property
regime therefore is governed by Article 148 of the
Family Code, which applies to bigamous marriages, ownership of properties acquired by the parties to a
adulterous relationships, relationships in a state of bigamous marriage and an adulterous relationship,
concubinage, relationships, where both man and respectively, we ruled that proof of actual
woman are married to other persons, and multiple contribution in the acquisition of the property is
alliances of the same married man. Under this essential. The claim of co-ownership of the
regime,." . . only the properties acquired by both of petitioners therein who were parties to the bigamous
the parties through their actual joint contribution of and adulterous union is without basis because they
money, property, or industry shall be owned by them failed to substantiate their allegation that they
in common in proportion to their respective contributed money in the purchase of the disputed
contributions . . ." Proof of actual contribution is properties. Also in Adriano v. Court of Appeals, we
required. ruled that the fact that the controverted property was
titled in the name of the parties to an adulterous
In the case at bar, although the adulterous relationship is not sufficient proof of co-ownership
cohabitation of the parties commenced in 1987, absent evidence of actual contribution in the
which is before the date of the effectivity of the acquisition of the property.
Family Code on August 3, 1998, Article 148 thereof
applies because this provision was intended As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests
precisely to fill up the hiatus in Article 144 of the upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings
Civil Code. Before Article 148 of the Family Code or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue.
was enacted, there was no provision governing Contentions must be proved by the competent
property relations of couples living in a state of evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of
adultery or concubinage. Hence, even if the the party’s own evidence and not upon the weakness
cohabitation or the acquisition of the property of the opponent’s defense. This applies with more
occurred before the Family Code took effect, Article vigor where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was
148 governs. allowed to present evidence ex parte. The plaintiff is
not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for.
In the cases of Agapay v. Palang, and Tumlos v. The law gives the defendant some measure of
Fernandez, which involved the issue of co- protection as the plaintiff must still prove the
allegations in the complaint. Favorable relief can be properties were valued at P111,375.00, the existence
granted only after the court is convinced that the and value of which were not questioned by the
facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief. petitioner. Hence, their share therein is equivalent to
Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of one-half, i.e., P55,687.50 each.
proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.
The Court of Appeals thus erred in affirming the
In the case at bar, the controversy centers on the decision of the trial court which granted the reliefs
house and the personal properties of the parties. prayed for by private Respondent. On the basis of
Private respondent alleged in her complaint that she the evidence established, the extent of private
contributed P70,000.00 for the completion of their respondent’s co-ownership over the disputed house
house. However, nowhere in her testimony did she is only up to the amount of P11,413.00, her proven
specify the extent of her contribution. What appears contribution in the construction thereof. Anent the
in the record are receipts in her name for the personal properties, her participation therein should
purchase of construction materials on November 17, be limited only to the amount of P55,000.
1995 and December 23, 1995, in the total amount of
P11,413.00.
On the other hand, both parties claim that the money
used to purchase the disputed personal properties
came partly from their joint account with First
Allied Development Bank. While there is no
question that both parties contributed in their joint
account deposit, there is, however, no sufficient
proof of the exact amount of their respective shares
therein. Pursuant to Article 148 of the Family Code,
in the absence of proof of extent of the parties’
respective contribution, their share shall be
presumed to be equal. Here, the disputed personal