SPS. CASTRO V.

MIAT
397 S 271

PONENTE: PUNO, J.

FACTS:
Moises is a widower and a father of two children, Romeo and
Alexander. He originally intended his two properties, one in paco
and the other in Paranque for his offspring but eventually
reverted, keeping the latter for himself while in UAE. He modified
the original agreement upon return to the Philippines in 1984.

Romeo and Alexander lived on the property with their own
families. On August 1985, Alexander and his his family left the
property.

On February 1988, Romeo learns that the subject property was
being sold to their godmothers son, Virgilio Castro. A Php30,000
downpayment was made by their godmother to Moises.

On April 1988, Alexander agrees to sell his share of the Paco
property for P42,750.00; a partial payment was made in the sum
of P6,000 by Romeo but Alexander did not execute a deed of
assignment in favor of his brother because he had lots of work to
do and the title was already in Romeos possession. Romeo was
able to mortgage the property.

On December 1, 1988, Romeo and Virgilio met in MTC Manila to
discuss the current status of the subject property. According to
Virgilios lawyer, the property is now owned by Virgilio by virtue
of deed of sale dated Decenber 5, 1988, for P95,000.

Romeo filed an action for the declaration of nullity of sale and to
compel Moises and Alexander to execute deed of conveyance.

RTC rendered a decision, but the CA modified the same.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Paco property is conjugal or capital.

RULING:
It is a conjugal property.

Although petitioners allege that property was paid for by Moises
and at the time it was paid, his wife had long been dead, the SC
disagrees on the grounds of the new Civil Code (which was
applicable because marriage was celebrated before FC):
Art 153 (1) -
The following are conjugal partnership property:
(1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage
at the expense of the common fund, whether the
acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the
spouses; x x x.

Records show that the property was acquired by onerous title.

Petitioners also overlook Article 160 of the New Civil Code. It
provides that 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. This article does not
require proof that the property was acquired with funds of the
partnership. The presumption applies even when the manner in
which the property was acquired does not appear.

Moises and Concordia bought the Paco property during their
marriage Moises did not bring it into their marriage, hence it
has to be considered as conjugal.