ANTONIA R. DELA PEA and ALVIN JOHN B.

DELA PEA, Petitioners,

G.R. No. 187490

Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ.

- versus -

GEMMA REMILYN C. AVILA and FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO., Respondents.

Promulgated: February 8, 2012

Facts: The suit concerns a 277 square meter parcel of residential land, together with the improvements thereon, situated in Marikina City and previously registered in the name of petitioner Antonia R. Dela Pea (Antonia), married to Antegono A. Dela Pea (Antegono) under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-32315 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal. On 7 May 1996, Antonia obtained from A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co. (Aguila) a loan in the sum of P250,000.00. On the very same day, Antonia also executed in favor of Aguila a notarized Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the property, for the purpose of securing the payment of said loan obligation. On 4 November 1997, Antonia executed a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of respondent Gemma Remilyn C. Avila (Gemma), for the stated consideration of P600,000.00. Utilizing the document, Gemma caused the cancellation of TCT No. N-32315 as well as the issuance of TCT No. 337834 of the Marikina City Registry of Deeds, naming her as the owner of the subject realty. On 18 May 1998, Antonia and her son, petitioner Alvin John B. Dela Pea (Alvin), filed against Gemma the complaint for annulment of deed of sale docketed before Branch 272 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City. Claiming that the subject realty was conjugal property, the Dela Peas alleged, among other matters, that the 7 May 1996 Deed of Real Estate Mortgage Antonia executed in favor of Aguila was not consented to by Antegono who had, by then, already died

Issue: Whether the subject property is considered a conjugal property so that the mortgaged entered into by petitioner is void because of lack of consent from petitioners husband?

Ruling: The petition is bereft of merit.

Pursuant to Article 160 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Although it is not necessary to prove that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership, proof of acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership. Not having established the time of acquisition of the property, the Dela Peas insist that the registration thereof in the name of Antonia R. Dela Pea, of legal age, Filipino, married to Antegono A. Dela Pea should have already sufficiently established its conjugal nature. Confronted with the same issue in the case Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled, however, that the phrase married to is merely descriptive of the civil status of the wife and cannot be interpreted to mean that the husband is also a registered owner. Because it is likewise possible that the property was acquired by the wife while she was still single and registered only after her marriage, neither would registration thereof in said manner constitute proof that the same was acquired during the marriage and, for said reason, to be presumed conjugal in nature. Since there is no showing as to when the property in question was acquired, the fact that the title is in the name of the wife alone is determinative of its nature as paraphernal, i.e., belonging exclusively to said spouse.