Mallilin vs Castillo

Mallilin vs. Castillo

GR No. 136803, June 16, 2000

FACTS:

Eustaquio Mallilin Jr. and Ma. Elvira Castillo were alleged to be both married and with children but separated from their respective spouses and cohabited in 1979 while respective marriages still subsist.  They established Superfreight Customs Brokerage Corporation during their union of which petitioner was the President and Chairman and respondent as Vice President and Treasurer.  They likewise acquired real and personal properties which were registered solely in respondent’s name.  Due to irreconcilable conflict, the couple separated in 1992.  Petitioner then demanded his share from respondent in the subject properties but the latter refused alleging that said properties had been registered solely in her name.  Furthermore, respondent denied that she and petitioner lived as husband and wife because they were still legally married at the time of cohabitation.

Petitioner filed complaint for partition of co-ownership shares while respondent filed a motion for summary judgment.  Trial court dismissed the former and granted the latter.

ISSUE: WON petitioner can validly claim his share in the acquired properties registered under the name of the respondent considering they both have subsisting relationship when they started living together.

HELD:

The Court ruled that trial court erred that parties who are not capacitated to marry each other and were living together could not have owned properties in common.  Under Article 148, if the parties are incapacitated to marry each other, properties acquired by them through their joint contribution, property or industry, shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their contributions which, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is presumed to be equal.  Hence, there is co-ownership even though the couples in union are not capacitated to marry each other.    

Furthermore, when CA dismissed petitioner’s complaint for partition on grounds of due process and equity, his right to prove ownership over the claimed properties was denied.  Such dismissal is unjustified since both ends may be served by simply excluding from the action for partition the properties registered in the name of Steelhouse Realty and Eloisa Castillo, not parties in the case.

The case was remanded to lower court for further proceedings.