Flores vs.

Escudero
GR No. L-31625 | August 17, 1983
Ponente: Justice Montemayor

Facts:
In 1877, Simeona de Mesa was married to Regino Beltran in San Pablo, Laguna. They have three children:
Mariano, Eulalio and Romualda. In 1902, Regino left Simeona, who lived somewhere else and never
returned until he died in March 20 1925. In July 13, 1912, Simeona purchased a 146.7-square meter
parcel of land in San Pablo. Subsequently, Simeon and her son Mariano sold the said land to herein
appellant couple Arsenio Escudero and Rosario Adap for P2,000. Herein defendant Ponciano Flores,
husband of Romualda, tried to repurchase the one-sixth of the whole parcel on behalf of his children
from Arsenio for. This represents the portion of inheritance of Romualda from her father Regino, who
was said to have owned half of the parcel of land being a conjugal property. According to Ponciano this
portion serves as the inheritance of his children with Romualda, who died on July 20, 1941. However, the
attempt to repurchase was a failure, causing Ponciano to file an action ti tge Ciyrt if 1 st Instance of Laguna
to recover said one-sixth portion of the mentioned property. The Court of 1 st Instance found that the
land was considered as a conjugal property, which Regino has indeed a half share. Hence, it decided in
favor of Ponciano, (1) ordering Arsenio to deliver the one-sixth portion in favor of the children of
Ponciano and Romualda and (2) pay proportional monthly rental for the use of the one-sixth portion of
the land from February 19, 1939 until the time of complete delivery of the property.

Issue:
W/N the land bought by Simeona, while living separately from Regino, is considered as conjugal
partnership property.

Held:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of 1 st Instance of Manila.

The law presumes that all property acquired during the marriage, regardless of whether the spouses are
living together or not, are considered conjugal properties. In this case, while it is true that the purchase
was made exclusively made by Simeona, it was not proven that she purchased the land with her own
money. In absence of such proof, the law equally presumes that the money came from the conjugal
funds. Hence, the parcel of land is classified as a conjugal property. As a result, Regino is entitled to one-
half share on the subject parcel of land, effecting that Romualda has one-sixth share on it.

In addition, the Supreme Court also affirmed that it is proper to make Arsenio liable for the
proportionate monthly rental for their use of the one-sixth portion of the land as this was effectively the
property of Romualda.