Spouses Laperal vs Spouses Katigbak

Spouses Laperal vs Spouses Katigbak

GR 16991, March 31, 1964

FACTS:

CFI Manila declared the property covered by TCT No.57626 as separate or paraphernal property of Evelina Kalaw-Katigbak.  The spouses Laperal disagree with this finding reiterating that its improvements and income are conjugal assets of the Spouses Katigbak.

When the spouses Katigbak got married, neither of them brought properties unto the marriage.  Ramon’s occupation rendered him a monthly income of P200.00.  The property in question was registered in the name of “Evelina Kalaw-Katigbak married to Ramon Katigbak”.  The latter declared that her mother was the one who bought the property for her and had placed it only in her name as the practice of her mother in buying properties and placing them directly in the names of her children.  The husband having no interest with the property only signed the document for the purpose of assisting his wife.

 In August 1950, the Laperals filed a case and was granted by the trial court against the Katigbaks in recovery of P14,000 and jewelry amounting to P97,500 or in lieu thereof, to pay such amount.  A month after the decision was rendered, Evelina filed a complaint against her husband for judicial separation of property and separate administration which was granted by the court and was sought for annulment by the Laperals. 

ISSUE: WON the property in question constitutes the paraphernal property of Evelina.

HELD:

All properties acquired during the marriage are presumed conjugal.  It is however not conclusive but merely rebuttable, unless it be proved that the property belong exclusively to the husband and wife.  In the case at bar, the deed of the land is under the name of the wife.  At the time it was purchased, the property was of substantial value and as admitted, the husband by himself could not have afforded to buy considering the singular source of income.

Hence, the property covered by TCT 57626 is considered a paraphernal property of the wife.