Villanueva vs IAC

Villanueva vs. IAC

GR No. 67582, October 29, 1987

FACTS:

Modesto Aranas, husband of Victoria, inherited a land from his father.  Dorothea and Teodoro, Modesto’s illegitimate children, borrowed money from private respondent Jesus Bernas, mortgaging as collateral their father’s property.  In the loan agreement, Aranas described themselves as the absolute co-owners.  Dorothea and Teodoro failed to pay the loan resulting to extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage in 1977 and thereafter Bernas acquired the land as the highest bidder.  Aftewards, the Aranases executed a deed of extrajudicial partition in 1978, in which they adjudicated the same land unto themselves in equal share pro-indiviso.  Bernas then consolidated his ownership over the lot when the mortgagors failed to redeem it withn the reglementary period, and had the title in the name of Modesto cancelled and another TCT issued in his name. 

 In 1978, petitioner Consolacion Villanueva and Raymundo Aranas filed a complaint against respondents spouses Jesus and Remedios Bernas, for the cancellation of the TCT under the name of the Bernases, and they be declared co-owners of the land.  Petitioner alleged that spouses Modesto and Victoria in 1987 and 1958 executed 2 separate wills: first bequeathing to Consolacion and Raymundo and to Dorothea and Teodoro, in equal shares pro diviso, all of said Victoria’s shares from the conjugal partnership property; and second Modesto’s interests in his conjugal partnership with Victoria as well as his separate properties bequeathed to Dorothea and Teodoro.  Trial court dismissed the complaint, declaring herein respondents as the legal owners of the disputed property.  IAC likewise affirmed the lower court’s decision.

ISSUE:  WON Villanueva had a right over the land and the improvements thereon made by Victoria who rendered the lot as conjugal property. 

HELD:

The land was not a conjugal partnership property of Victoria and Modesto.  It was Modesto’s exclusive property since he inherited it from his parents.  Moreover, since Victoria died ahead of Modesto, Victoria did not inherit said lot from him and therefore had nothing of the land to bequeath by will of otherwise to Consolacion. 

 Article 158 of the Civil Code says that improvements, whether for utility or adornment made on the separate property of the spouses through advancements from the partnership or through the industry of either spouse belong to the conjugal partnership, and buildings constructed at the expense of the partnership during the marriage on land belonging to one of the spouses also pertain to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the same. 

There was no proof presented by Villanueva.  Such proof is needed at the time of the making or construction of the improvements and the source of the funds used thereof in order to determine the character of the improvements as belonging to the conjugal partnership or to one spouse separately.  What is certain is that the land on which the improvements stand was the exclusive property of Modesto and that where the property is registered in the name of one spouse only and there is no showing of when precisely the property was acquired, the presumption is that is belongs exclusively to said spouse.  It is not therefore possible to declare the improvements to be conjugal in character. 

Furthermore, Bernas’ mode of acquisition of ownership over the property appears in all respect to be regular, untainted by any defect whatsoever.  Bernas must therefore be deemed to have acquired indefeasible and clear title to the lot which cannot be defeated or negated by claims subsequently arising and of which he had no knowledge or means of knowing prior to their assertion and ventilation.