[2]
Petitioner also assails the February 14, 1999 CA Resolution denying the
Motion for Reconsideration.
The Facts
The Court of Appeals narrates the facts as follows:
"[Herein respondents] were the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 6756,
an action for ejectment filed before Branch 82 of the MTC of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila against [herein Petitioner] Guillerma
Tumlos, Toto Tumlos, and Gina Tumlos. In their complaint dated
July 5, 1996, the said spouses alleged that they are the absolute
owners of an apartment building located at ARTE SUBDIVISION
III, Lawang Bato, Valenzuela, Metro Manila; that through tolerance
they had allowed the defendants-private respondents to occupy
the apartment building for the last seven (7) years, since 1989,
without the payment of any rent; that it was agreed upon that after
a few months, defendant Guillerma Tumlos will pay P1,600.00 a
month while the other defendants promised to pay P1,000.00 a
month, both as rental, which agreement was not complied with by
the said defendants; that they have demanded several times [that]
the defendants x x x vacate the premises, as they are in need of
the property for the construction of a new building; and that they
have also demanded payment of P84,000.00 from Toto and Gina
Tumlos representing rentals for seven (7) years and payment of
P143,600.00 from Guillerma Tumlos as unpaid rentals for seven
(7) years, but the said demands went unheeded. They then
prayed that the defendants be ordered to vacate the property in
question and to pay the stated unpaid rentals, as well as to jointly
pay P30,000.00 in attorneys fees.
"[Petitioner] Guillerma Tumlos was the only one who filed an
answer to the complaint. She averred therein that the Fernandez
spouses had no cause of action against her, since she is a co-
As earlier stated, the CA reversed the RTC. Hence, this Petition filed by
Guillerma Tumlos only.
[6]
The Issues
In her Memorandum, petitioner submits the following issues for the
consideration of the Court:
"I. The Court of Appeals gravely erred and abused its discretion in
not outrightly dismissing the petition for review filed by
respondents.
"II. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that petitioner is not the
co-owner of the property in litis.
"III. Corollary thereto, the Court of Appeals erred in applying Art.
148 of the Family Code in the case at bar. Man-ikan
"IV. The Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the substantive
right of support vis--vis the remedy of ejectment resorted to by
respondents."
[8]
In resolving this case, we shall answer two questions: (a) Is the petitioner a
co-owner of the property? (b) Can the claim for support bar this ejectment
suit? We shall also discuss these preliminary matters: (a) whether the CA was
biased in favor of respondents and (b) whether the MTC had jurisdiction over
the ejectment suit. Manik-s
The Courts Ruling
The Petition has no merit.
Preliminary Matters
Petitioner submits that the CA exhibited partiality in favor of herein
respondents. This bias, she argues, is manifest in the following: Man-ikx
1. The CA considered the respondents Petition for Review despite their
failure to attach several pleadings as well as the explanation for the proof of
service, despite the clear mandate of Section 11 of Rule 13 of the Revised
Rules of Court and despite the ruling in Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v.
Ricafort.
[9]
[10]
[11]
3. It considered respondents Reply dated May 20, 1998, which had allegedly
been filed out of time. Ne-xold
4. It declared that the case was submitted for decision without first
determining whether to give due course to the Petition, pursuant to Section 6,
Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
[12]
The CA, for its part, succinctly dismissed these arguments in this wise: Mi-so
"It is too late in the day now to question the alleged procedural
error after we have rendered the decision. More importantly, when
the private respondent filed their comment to the petition on April
26, 1998, they failed to question such alleged procedural error.
Neither have they questioned all the resolutions issued by the
Court after their filing of such comment. They should, therefore,
be now considered in estoppel to question the same."
[13]
We agree with the appellate court. Petitioner never raised these matters
before the CA. She cannot be allowed now to challenge its Decision on
grounds of alleged technicalities beingbelatedly raised as an afterthought. In
this light, she cannot invoke Solar because she never raised this issue
before the CA. Spp-edjo
[14]
On the other hand, the CA held that the pieces of evidence adduced before
the RTC could no longer be considered because they had not been submitted
before the MTC. Hence, the appellate court concluded that "[t]he claim of coownership was not satisfactorily proven x x x."
[18]
We agree with the petitioner that the RTC did not err in considering the
evidence presented before it. Nonetheless, we reject her claim that she was a
co-owner of the disputed property.Missc
Evidence Presented on Appeal Before the RTC
In ruling that the RTC erred in considering on appeal the evidence presented
by petitioner, the CA relied on the doctrine that issues not raised during trial
could not be considered for the first time during appeal.
[19]
We disagree. In the first place, there were no new matters or issues belatedly
raised during the appeal before the RTC. The defense invoked by petitioner at
the very start was that she was a co-owner. To support her claim, she
presented a Contract to Sell dated November 14, 1986, which stated that
Mario Fernandez was legally married to her. The allegation that she was
cohabiting with him was a mere elaboration of her initial theory.
"If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share
in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or
conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party
who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her
share shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last
paragraph of the preceding Article.
"The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both
parties are in bad faith." Sc
Article 144 of the Civil Code applies only to a relationship between a man and
a woman who are not incapacitated to marry each other, or to one in which
the marriage of the parties is void from the beginning. It does not apply to a
cohabitation that amounts to adultery or concubinage, for it would be absurd
[22]
[23]
[24]
[28]
be highly improper for us to rule on such issue. Besides, it was not properly
taken up below. In any event, Article 298 of the Civil Code requires that
there should be an extrajudicial demand. None was made here. The CA was
correct when it said:
[30]
[31]
[32]
Tumlos vs Fernandez
Tumlos vs Fernandez
GR No. 137650, April 12, 2000
FACTS:
Mario and Lourdes Fernandez were plaintiffs in an action for ejectment filed
against Guillerma, Gina and Toto Tumlos. In the complaint, spouses Fernandez
alleged that they are the absolute owners of an apartment building that through
their tolerance they allowed the Tumlos to occupy the apartment for the last 7
years without payment of any rent. It was agreed that Guillerma will pay 1,600
a month while the other defendants promised to pay 1,000 a month which was
not complied with. Demand was made several times for the defendants to
vacate the premises as they are in need of the property for the construction of a
new building.
TUMLOS VS FERNANDEZ
Posted by kaye lee on 10:00 PM
G.R. No. 137650 April 12 2000
FACTS:
Spouses Fernandez filed an action for ejectment against the Tumlos. Said spouses alleged
that they are the absolute owners of an apartment building located in Valenzuela, Metro
Manila; that they allowed the Tumlos to occupy the apartment building since 1989, without
any payment of any rent. It was agreed that Guillerma Tumlos would pay P1,600/mo while
the other defendants promised to pay P1,000/mo for the rental, which was not fulfilled by
the Tumlos. When the Fernandez demanded the payment from the Tumlos of P84,000 from
Toto and Gina Tumlos as unpaid rentals for 7 years and P143,600.00 from Guillerma as
unpaid rentals for 7 years, but said demand were unheeded. Then they prayed that the
Tumlos be ordered to vacate the property in question and to pay the stated unpaid rentals,
as well as to jointly pay P30,000 in attorney's fees.
Guillerma filed an answer to the complaint, claiming that she is also the co-owner and covendee of the apartment in question together with Mario Fernandez, as evidenced by a
Contract to Sell. MTC promulgated its decision in January 1997.
Upon appeal to the RTC Guillerma et al alleged that Mario Fernandez and Guillerma had an
amorous relationship, and that they bought the property as their love nest; that they lived
together in the property with their 2 children and that Guillerma administered the property
by collecting rentals, until she discovered that Mario deceived her as to the annulment of his
marriage.
RTC affirmed with the judgment of the MTC. CA reversed the RTC Decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not that petitioner is the co-owner of the apartment.
RULING:
No. SC rejected the claim that Guillerma and Mario were the co-owners of the disputed
property.
Under Article 148, proof of actual contribution must be presented to be deemed as co-owner
of the property acquired during the cohabitation. In this case, Guillerma failed to present any
evidence that she had made an actual contribution to purchase the apartment building. She
merely anchors her claim of co-ownership on her cohabitation with Mario Fernandez. No
other evidence was presented to validate such claim, except for the said affidavit/position
paper. Her claim of having administered the property during their cohabitation is
unsubstantiated, for there is nothing in the Article 148 of the FC provides that the
administration of the property amounts to the contribution in its acquisition.
Categories: Persons and Family Relations, Philippine Civil Code, Property Regime of Unions
Without Marriage
FACTS:
Mario and Lourdes Fernandez were the plaintiffs in an action for ejectment filed before Branch 82 of the MTC
of Valenzuela, Metro Manila against Guillerma Tumlos, Toto Tumlos and Gina Tumlos.
In their complaint the said spouses alleged that they are the absolute owners of an apaprtment building;
that through tolerance they had allowed the Tumloses to occupy the apartment building for the last seven
years, since 1989, without the payment of any rent; that it was agreed upon that after a few months,
defendant Guillerma Tumlos will pay P1,600.00 a month while the other defendants promised to pay
P1,000.00 a month both as rental, which agreement was not complied with by the said defendants; that
they have demanded several times the defendants to vacate the premises, as they are in need of the
property for the construction of a new building. Spouses have also demanded payment incurred for the last
seven years. Such demands were unheeded thus this present action of the spouses.
The MTC promulgated its decision on January 22, 1997.
The defendants appeals to the RTC, alleged in their memorandum on appeal that Mario Fernandez and
Guillerma had an amorous relationship, and that they acquired the property in question as their love nest. It
was further alleged that they lived together in the said apaprtment building with their two (2) children for
around then (10) years, and that Guillerma administered the property by collecting rentals from the lessees
of the other apartments, until she discovered that Mario deceived her as to the annulment of is marriage. It
was also during the early part of 1996 when Mario accused her of being unfaithful and demonstrated his
baseless jealousy.
ISSUE: WON Guillerma Tumlos is a Co-owner of the said apartment under Article 148.
HELD: The Supreme Court rejected the claim that Guillerma Tumlos and Mario Fernandez were co-owners of
the disputed property. The claim of co-owenrship was not satisfactorily proven by Guillerma. No other
evidence was presented to validate such claim, except for the said affidavit/position paper. As previously
stated, it was only on appeal that Guillerma alleged that she cohabited with the petitioner-husband without
the benefit of marriage, and that she bore him two children. Such contentions and documents should not
have been considered by the RTC, as they were not presented in her affidavit/position paper before the trial
court MTC.
Even if the said allegations were true, the claim of co-ownership still fails. Mario Fernandez is validly married
to Lourdes Fernandez, Guillerma and Mario are not capacitated to marry each other. Thus, the property
relation governing their supposed cohabitation is that found in Article 148 of the Family Code. it is clear that
actual contribution is required by its provision, in contrast to Article 147 of the Family Code which states that
efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household are regarded as contributions to the
acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry. Such provision is
not included in article 148 of the Family Code.
If actual contribution of the party is not proven then there is no co-ownership and no presumption of equal
shares as stated in Agapay, Supra