Property relations between husband and wife Article 148 Family Code Tumlos v spouses Fernandez petition for

review on certiorari FACTS

CA reversed the RTC decision that affirmed the MTC decision in favor of Guillerma Tumlos, which ordered the dismissal of the petition. The case is about the ejectment order of Guillerma, Toto and Gina Tumlos from the apartment building in Valenzuela of the spouses Fernandez (Mario and Lourdes). The spouses, on the other hand, say that they are the absolute owners of the property. They said that the Tumloses have been living in their apartment for the last seven years but that they had agreed that the Tumloses will have to pay their rental after such time, but they failed to do so. Guillerma, on the other hand, say that the ejectment suit cannot stand because she is actually co-owner of the property, because she is a co-vendee together with Mario Fernandez. They bought the property as their love nest and had two kids. She was deceived by him when she found out that his prior marriage had not been annulled like he said it was. She also said that Toto and Gina were only transient dwellers in the property and are not tenants of the spouses Fernandez. Guillerma also said that the contract to sell submitted by the spouses as proof of their ownership was falsified to reflect that Lourdes was the co-vendee with Mario, after she discovered their subsisting marriage and Mario asked for the contract to be changed to what it is now.

CA RULING Mario is not legally capacitated to marry Guillerma, so the rules on co-ownership must fail. Also, Guillerma failed to show that she made any actual joint contribution to the property to prove that she has a claim in it. ISSUES Preliminary matters -Guillerma says that CA is biased in favor of respondents, but then procedural errors cannot now be raised because they were not raised earlier. Also, the CA has already rendered its judgment. -MTC has jurisdiction over the case because the issue of co-ownership may be passed upon by the MTC to settle issue on possession. Petitioner is not co-owner -procedural rules have been complied with, because CA was right in saying that issues not raised during trial cannot be raised for the first time during appeal -she is not co-owner under Art 144 of the Civil Code, which applies only to a relationship between a man and a woman not legally capacitated to marry one another. It would be absurd to create a co-ownership when there exists a prior CPG or absolute community between a man and his legal wife. -no actual joint contribution, and the claim of administration over the property during cohabitation has not been proven. Support and ejectment -petitioner says that Mario failed to refute the filiation of his alleged sons and in effect admits that he is the father, thus making him liable to support them, including providing for shelter. She says that their right to support prevails over the ejectment suit. -SC says that the ejectment suit deals exclusively with the issue of possession of the property and nothing else. Filiation is irrelevant. RULING Petition denied.