G.R. No.

72321 December 8, 1988

DIOSDIDIT, BALDOMERO, FILOMENO, ELPIDIO, AIDA, all surnamed CUENCA

vs.

RESTITUTO CUENCA, MELADORA CUENCA and COURT OF APPEALS

Nature:

Petition for review on certiorari seeks the reversal of the resolutions of the then Intermediate Appellate
Court, now Court of Appeals, denying the petitioners' motion for new trial on the ground of newly
discovered evidence.

Facts:

Private respondents Restituto Cuenca and Meladora Cuenca filed a complaint for recovery of real property
and damages against the petitioners before the then Court of First Instance of Davao del Norte.

On November 26, 1984, the appellate court reversed and set aside the decision of the lower court. It
rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents wherein Restituto Cuenca was proclaimed as the
absolute and exclusive owner of that parcel of land known in Butuan containing an area of 6 hectares,
ordering the defendants to restore to said plaintiff Restituto Cuenca the possession of said parcel of land;
declaring the parcel of land in Butuan, containing an area of 17 hectares, 732 centares, more or less,
declared in the name of Restituto Cuenca as conjugal partnership property of deceased spouses Agripino
Cuenca and Maria Bangahon.

In effect declaring one half portion of said parcel of conjugal partnership property the share of the deceased
Maria Bangahon to be divided exclusively share and share alike between Restituto Cuenca and Meladora
Cuenca as the heirs of Maria Bangahon; declaring the other half portion of said parcel as the share of the
late Agripino Cuenca also with plaintiffs as the only surviving heirs of the said Agripino Cuenca entitled to
divide exclusively between themselves share and share alike the said one half portion of Agripino Cuenca,
and the other one half of the share of Agripino Cuenca to be divided among the plaintiffs Restituto Cuenca
and Meladora Cuenca and defendant Engracia Basadre in equal shares under Article 892 of the New Civil
Code.

Respondents claimed ownership over the property on the ground that they are legitimate children of
Agripino Cuenca and Maria Bangahon (both deceased). They argue that some parcels are owned by Maria
and all the others are conjugal properties of Maria and Agripino, not Agripino and Engracia. They alleged
that Agripino and Engracia Basadre were not legally married because at the time they live together,
Agripino was married to a certain Jesusa Pagar.

Petitioners denied the legitimacy of the marriage of Agripino and Maria as well as the legitimacy of
plaintiffs as children ofthe couple. They argued that Agripino and their mother Engracia were legally
married and that they are legitimate children. They contest that the parcels of land in question are conjugal
properties of Agripino and Engracia.
Petitioners filed a motion for new trial on the ground of new found evidences which shows that:

A certified true copy of the register of birth of Diosdidit, which proved that he is indeed a legitimate child.
Aside from this, 8 sketch maps were obtained alleging that the parcels of land in questioned were surveyed
for Agripino Cuenca and approved when Agripino was already married to their mother, Engracia as
indicated in the documents. Hence, there is a presumption that these parcels of land are part of their
conjugal properties. Therefore petitioners have hereditary rights over these properties.

Issues: WON the lands in Butuan are conjugal properties of spouses Agripino Cuenca and Engracia
Basadre.

Ruling: No.

Ratio Decidendi:

Article 160 of the New Civil Code provides:

“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 the wife.” This actually refers only to properties acquired during
marriage and does not operate when there is no showing as to when the property alleged to be conjugal
was acquired.

The documents that were presented do not show that the claims to the subject of parcels of land consisting
of homestead lands were acquired during the marriage of Agripino and Engracia Basadre. The sketch maps
do not show that the claimed to the homestead lands were perfected during the marriage of
petitioner’s(DIOSDIDIT, BALDOMERO, FILOMENO, ELPIDIO, AIDA,) parents(Engracia and Agripino). The
perfection of the homestead claims is considered at the time of acquisition of the properties which was
during the marriage of Agripino and Maria (parents of Restituto and Meladora).

A new trial would only be an unnecessary exercise and ineffective. The results would not change. Decisions
of appellate course are affirmed.

CUENCA V CUENCA

For easy understanding of the case:

In a nutshell, there’s this parcel of land (1 whole) that belonged to Agripino and Maria. Maria died, Agripino
married Engracia. Agripino was the administrator of the land, the lands were perfected during his marriage
with Engracia(which made the petitioners assume that it was their parents’ conjugal property, not Agripino
and Maria) but in reality, it was actually acquired during the marriage of Maria and Agripino.

So the court divided it in such way --