G.R. No.

137650 April 12, 2000

GUILLERMA TUMLOS, petitioner,

vs.SPOUSES MARIO FERNANDEZ and LOURDES FERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS:
Spouses Fernandez filed an action for ejectment against the Tumlos. Said spouses alleged that they are
the absolute owners of an apartment building located in Valenzuela, Metro Manila; that they allowed the
Tumlos to occupy the apartment building since 1989, without any payment of any rent. It was agreed that
Guillerma Tumlos would pay P1,600/mo while the other defendants promised to pay P1,000/mo for the
rental, which was not fulfilled by the Tumlos. When the Fernandez demanded the payment from the
Tumlos of P84,000 from Toto and Gina Tumlos as unpaid rentals for 7 years and P143,600.00 from
Guillerma as unpaid rentals for 7 years, but said demand were unheeded. Then they prayed that the
Tumlos be ordered to vacate the property in question and to pay the stated unpaid rentals, as well as to
jointly pay P30,000 in attorney's fees.
Guillerma filed an answer to the complaint, claiming that she is also the co-owner and co-vendee of the
apartment in question together with Mario Fernandez, as evidenced by a Contract to Sell. MTC
promulgated its decision in January 1997.

Upon appeal to the RTC Guillerma et al alleged that Mario Fernandez and Guillerma had an amorous
relationship, and that they bought the property as their love nest; that they lived together in the property
with their 2 children and that Guillerma administered the property by collecting rentals, until she
discovered that Mario deceived her as to the annulment of his marriage.

RTC affirmed with the judgment of the MTC. CA reversed the RTC Decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not that petitioner is the co-owner of the apartment.

RULING:

No. SC rejected the claim that Guillerma and Mario were the co-owners of the disputed property.
Under Article 148, proof of actual contribution must be presented to be deemed as co-owner of the property
acquired during the cohabitation. In this case, Guillerma failed to present any evidence that she had made an actual
contribution to purchase the apartment building. She merely anchors her claim of co-ownership on her cohabitation
with Mario Fernandez. No other evidence was presented to validate such claim, except for the said affidavit/position
paper. Her claim of having administered the property during their cohabitation is unsubstantiated, for there is
nothing in the Article 148 of the FC provides that the administration of the property amounts to the contribution in
its acquisition.