vs.
Facts:
Alfredo Revilla and Paz Castillo-Revilla (Revilla spouses) are the owners in fee simple of
an unregistered parcel of land. In 1983, Paz Castillo-Revilla borrowed money from Amada
Cotoner-Zacarias to finance Alfredo Revillas travel to Saudi Arabia. By way of security, the parties
verbally agreed that until full payment of the loan, Amada would take physical possession of the
property, cultivate it, then use the earnings from the cultivation to pay the loan and realty taxes.
Unknown to the Revilla spouses, Amada presented a fictitious document dated March 19, 1979,
entitled Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa before the Provincial Assessor of Cavite, with the Revilla
spouses as sellers and Amada as buyer of the property. Consequently, the tax declaration in the
name of the Revilla spouses was cancelled, and a new tax declaration was issued in the name of
Amada.
In 1984, Amada sold the property to the spouses Adolfo and Elvira Casorla (Casorla
spouses). In turn, the Casorla spouses sold the property to spouses Rodolfo and Yolanda Sun (Sun
spouses). Upon Alfredo Revillas return from Saudi Arabia, he discovered that the propertys tax
declaration was already in the name of the Sun spouses. Subsequently, the Revilla spouses were
served a copy of the answer in the land registration case filed by the Sun spouses, with a copy of
the Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa attached to it. The Revilla spouses then filed a complaint for
the annulment of sales and transfers of title and reconveyance of the property with damages
against Amada, the Casorla spouses, the Sun spouses, and the Provincial Assessor of Cavite. The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Revilla spouses. Amada appealed but it was denied,
Issues:
- whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the reinstatement and reconveyance of the
Ruling:
There was no delay by respondents Revilla spouses in asserting their rights over the
property. The lower courts found that respondents Revilla spouses first learned of the existence
of the Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa in February 1995 when they were served a copy of the
pleading in the land registration case instituted by the Sun spouses.49 They filed their complaint
within the same year, specifically, on November 17, 1995. The lapse of only nine (9) months from
the time they learned of the questionable transfers on the property cannot be considered as
The reinstatement of the property in favor of respondents Revilla spouses was anchored
on the lower courts finding that their signatures as sellers in the Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa
were forged. Amada contends that the lower courts never declared as falsified the signature of
Alfredos wife, Paz Castillo-Revilla. Since the property is conjugal in nature, the sale as to the one-
civil laws have no retroactive effect. Article 256 of the Family Code provides that [it] shall have
retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Article 165 of the Civil Code states that the
husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. Article 172 of the Civil Code provides
that [t]he wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husbands consent, except in
cases provided by law. In any case, the second paragraph of Article 96 of the Family Code also
provides that "In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate
in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of
the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent,
the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. Thus, as correctly found by the Court of Appeals,
assuming arguendo that the signature of plaintiff-appellee Paz on the Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng
Lupa was not forged, her signature alone would still not bind the subject property, it being
already established that the said transaction was made without the consent of her husband
plaintiff-appellee Alfredo.
The petition was denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated
vs
FACTS:
Petitioner, David Noveras and respondent, Leticia Noveras are US citizens who
ownproperties in the US and in the Philippines during their marriage. One of the properties,
situated at Sampaloc Manila, was mortagaged from a bank. When said property was about to ne
September 2003 and lived with his mistress. Further, respondent claimed that they executed a
joint affidavit wherein petitioner renounced all his rights and interests in the conjugal and real
After learning that petitioner had an extra-marital affair, respondent obtained a decree
of divorce from the Superior Court of California wherein the court awarded all the properties in
the US to Leticia. With respect to their properties in the Philippines, Leticia filed a petition for
The RTC awarded the properties in the Philippines to David, with the properties in the US
remaining in the sole ownership of Leticia. The trial court ruled that in accordance with the
doctrine of processual presumption, Philippine law should apply because the court cannot take
judicial notice of the US law since the parties did not submit any proof of their national law.
On appeal, the CA directed the equal division of the Philippine properties between the
spouses. David insists that the CA should have recognized the California Judgment which awarded
ISSUE/S:
A. Whether or not petitioner committed acts of abandonment and shall serve as a ground
B. Whether or not the Joint affidavit executed by the petitioner and respondent will
amount to a waiver or forfeiture of the formers rights over their conjugal properties.
HELD:
A. While actual abandonment had not been proved, it is undisputed fact that the spouses
had been living separately since 2003 when petitioner decided to go back to the Philippines to
set up his own business. Second, the respondent heard form one of her friends that petitioner
has been cohabiting with Estrellita Martines, who represented herself as Estrellita Noveras.
Editha Apolonio, who worked in the hospital where David was once confined, testified that she
saw the name of Estrellita listed as the wife of David in the Consent for Operation form. Third
and more significantly, they filed for divorce and it was granted by the California court in June
2005.
B. As a general rule, any modification in the marriage settlements must be made before
the celebration of marriage. An exception to this rule is allowed provided that the modification
is judicially approved and refers only to the instances provided in Articles 66, 67, 158, 135 and
Sampaloc property. While Both claimed to have contributed to the redemption of the Noveras
property, absent a clear showing where their contributions came from, the same is presumed to
have come from, the same is reimbursement of half of the redemption money.
(13)
vs.
ZABALLERO-LUNA, Respondents
Facts:
Atty. JUAN LUCES LUNA was married to Eugenia Zaballero-Luna in a civil ceremony
conducted by the Justice of the Peace of Paranaque, Rizal on September 10, 1947 and
they begot seven (7) children, namely: Regina Maria L. Nadal, Juan Luis Luna, Araceli
Victoria L. Arellano, Ana Maria L. Tabunda, Gregorio Macario Luna Carolina Linda L.
Tapia, and Cesar Antonio Luna. On January 12, 1976, ATTY. LUNA obtained a divorce
decree of his marriage with EUGENIA from the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the
First Circumscription of the Court of First Instance of Sto. Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Also in Sto.Domingo, Dominican Republic, on the same date, ATTY. LUNA contracted
another marriage, this time with SOLEDAD. Thereafter, ATTY. LUNA and SOLEDAD
returned to the Philippines and lived together as husband and wife until 1987. ATTY.
LUNA died on July 12,1997
Issue:
Whether the divorce between atty. Luna and Eugenia is valid to dissolve their marriage?
Ruling:
No, Divorce between Filipino spouses is void and ineffectual under the nationality rule
adopted by Philippine law. Philippine laws relating to family rights, duties, or status,
condition or legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines,
Hence, any settlement of property between the parties of the first marriage involving
competent judicial approval, and cannot be enforceable against the assets of the husband
vs.
Facts:
On July 27, 2007, the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City declared petitioner Celerina
presumptively dead after her husband, respondent Ricardo had filed a petition for declaration of
absence or presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage. Ricardo remarried on 2008.
In his petition, Ricardo alleged that: (a) a year after they had gotten married on 1980 they
moved to Tarlac City where they were engaged in the buy and sell business; (b) their business did
not prosper and because of Celerina's insistence, he allowed her to work as a domestic helper in
Hong Kong; (c) she left Tarlac and was never heard from again; (d) he exerted efforts to locate
Celerina; (e) that it was almost 12 years from the date of his Regional Trial Court petition since
On the other hand, Celerina claimed that she learned about Ricardo's petition only
sometime in 2008 when she could no longer avail the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
On November 17, 2008, she filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court
of Appeals on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Celerina claimed that she
never resided in Tarlac. She also never left and worked as a domestic helper abroad. It was not
true that she had been absent for 12 years. Ricardo was aware that she never left their conjugal
dwelling in Quezon City. It was he who left the conjugal dwelling in May 2008 to cohabit with
another woman. She was deprived of any notice of and opportunity to oppose the petition
November 28, 2008, Court of Appeals dismissed Celerina's petition for annulment of
judgment for being a wrong mode of remedy. The proper remedy was to file a sworn statement
before the civil registry, declaring her reappearance in accordance with Article 42 of the Family
Code.
Issue:
accordance with Article 42 of the Family Code is the proper remedy for a fraudulently obtained
Held:
Celerina argued that filing an affidavit of reappearance under Article 42 of the Family
Code is appropriate only when the spouse is actually absent and the spouse seeking the
declaration of presumptive death actually has a well-founded belief of the spouse's death. It
would be inappropriate to file an affidavit of reappearance if she did not disappear in the first
place. It would also not be a sufficient remedy because it would not nullify the legal effects of the
judgment declaring her presumptive death. She insisted that an action for annulment of
Annulment of judgment is the remedy when the Regional Trial Courts judgment, order,
or resolution has become final, and the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief (or other
The Family Code provides that the second marriage is in danger of being terminated by
Article 42. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be
recorded in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent
marriage at the instance of any interested person, with due notice to the spouses
In other words, the Family Code provides the presumptively dead spouse with the remedy
that his or her marriage to the present spouse was terminated when he or she was declared
Also, a subsequent marriage contracted in bad faith, even if it was contracted after a court
declaration of presumptive death, lacks the requirement of a well-founded belief that the spouse
is already dead. The first marriage will not be considered as validly terminated.
Therefore, for the purpose of not only terminating the subsequent marriage but also of
nullifying the effects of the declaration of presumptive death and the subsequent marriage, it is
not the mere filing of an affidavit of reappearance but an action for annulment of judgment is
Case no. 15
as required under ourlaw. The resolution of a case, in this instance, an action for annulment of
title and reconveyance of real property, cannot be further stalled and waylaid by a mere assertion
of a party of an ostensible conflicting claims of heirship of the common decedent. Not all rights
(15)
HEIRS OF VALENTIN BASBAS et. al., petitioner
vs.
Facts
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
Decision ofthe Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 998531 which reversed and set aside the
rulings, after trial and then on appeal, of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Sta. Rosa, Laguna in Civil Case No. 1913 and Civil Case No. B-6334, respectively. The trial
courts annulled TCT No. 294295 issued in the name of Crispiniano Talampas Basbas (Crispiniano)
and herein respondent Ricardo Talampas Basbas (Ricardo), covering Lot No. 39 of the Santa Rosa
Detached Estate, the subject property, and originally titled to the decedent, Severo Basbas
(Severo) under Certificate of Title No. RT-1684 (N.A.). Crispiniano and Ricardo and all their
Both parties, petitioners, Heirs of Valentin Basbas (Valentin), and respondent Ricardo
Petitioners filed an Action for Annulment of Title, Reconveyance with Damages against
Crispiniano and respondent Ricardo seeking to: (1) annul Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
294295 issued in the names of Crispiniano and Ricardo covering the contested lot, and (2) recover
possession of the subject property beforethe Municipal Trial Court, Santa Rosa, Laguna, docketed
ownership over Lot No. 39 and contended that upon Severos death, he was survived by two
Crispiniano and Ricardo) who evenly divided Severos estate, comprising of two lots, herein
subject property, Lot No. 39 of the Santa Rosa Detached Estate, and Lot No. 40, adjacent thereto,
among them. Lot No. 40 was inherited by Valentin, while Lot No. 39 went to Nicolas.
Issue
Whether or not Crispiniano and herein respondent Ricardo Basbas are legitimate heirs of
Whether or not the court of appeals seriously erred in failing to render judgment based
on the evidence presented relative to the issues raised and ruled upon by the municipal trial
court of santa rosa, laguna and the regional trial court of bian, laguna.
Ruling
The trial courts found that petitioners fully established their filiation with the decedent
Severo, the original titleholder of Lot No. 39 and from whom all parties trace their claim of
ownership over the subject property. Oppositely, the trial courts found wanting, lacking
documentary evidence, the different claims of heirship of Crispiniano and herein respondent
Ricardo, through Severos purported other son or nephew, Nicolas. The MTC, affirmed in toto by
the RTC.
We add that Valentins rights to the succession vested from the moment of death of the
decedent Severo, rights to the succession vested from the moment of Valentins death. As such,
they own Lot No. 39, undisputedly titled in Severos name and forming part of Severos estate,
In this regard, we note that the Court of Appeals did not reverse the trials courts factual
finding on Cripinianos and Ricardos fraudulent titling of Lot No. 39 in their names. The evidence
1. Title to Lot No. 39 is not in their names, neither is it titled in the name of their
2. Crispiniano and Ricardo are not the only heirs of Severo, if they are even heirs to begin
with.
One final note. Severo, as well as Valentin, have been long dead. It is well-nigh that title
to the subject property, Lot No. 39 of the Santa Rosa Detached Estate, appear in the names of
the petitioners, Heirs of Valentin, herein declared heirs of Severo, or their successors-in-interest,
to finally settle title thereto and prevent occurrences of fraudulent titling thereof. Hence,
petitioners, Heirs of Valentin and their successors-in-interest, are directed to take the
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 99853 is REVERSED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court and the Municipal Trial Court
are AFFIRMED. Petitioners, Heirs of Valentin Basbas and their successors-in-interest, are likewise
DIRECTED to take the appropriate action for titling of Lot No. 39 of Santa Rosa Detached Estate
with dispatch, and NOTIFY this Court within ten (10) days of such action.