Land Tits - Ventura Vs Abuda
Land Tits - Ventura Vs Abuda
Abuda
Facts:
Socorro Torres and Esteban Abletes married on June 9, 1980. Both were previously married. Esteban's
marriage was dissolved by his first wife's death in 1960, with whom he had a daughter, Evangeline
Abuda. Soccoro's first marriage to Crispin Roxas in 1952, however, was not dissolved and was still
subsisting at the time of her marriage with Esteban. Socorro also had a son from her first marriage, the
father of Edilberto U. Ventura Jr. (Socorro is Edilberto Jr.'s grandmother).
In 1968, Esteban purchased a portion of a lot situated at 2492 State Alley, Bonifacio Street, Vitas, Tondo,
Manila (Vitas property). The remaining portion was thereafter purchased by Evangeline on her father's
behalf sometime in 1970. 4 The Vitas property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 141782,
dated 11 December 1980, issued to "Esteban Abletes, of legal age, Filipino, married to Socorro
Torres."|||
Esteban also operated small businesses on a property on Delpan St., Tondo, Manila. On September 6,
1997, Esteban sold the Vitas and Delpan properties to his daughter, Evangeline and her husband,
Paulino Abuda. Esteban and Socorro died in 1997 and 1999, respectively.
In 2000, Leonora Urquila (Ediberto's mother) discovered the sales made by Esteban in favor of
Evangeline and her husband. Thus, Edilberto, represented by Leonora, filed a Petition for Annulment of
Deeds of Sale before the RTC-Manila. Edilberto alleged that the sale of the properties was fraudulent
because Esteban's signature on the deeds of sale was forged. Respondents, on the other hand, argued
that because of Socorro's prior marriage to Crispin, her subsequent marriage to Esteban was null and
void. Thus, neither Socorro nor her heirs can claim any right or interest over the properties purchased by
Esteban and respondents.
The RTC denied Edilberto's petition. The CA sustained the RTC's decision.
Issue:
Whether or not Edilberto is entitled to the sold properties by virtue of Socorro's marriage to Esteban.
Ruling:
2. Edilberto claims that Esteban's actual contribution to the purchase of the Delpan property was not
sufficiently proven since Evangeline shouldered some of the amortizations. Thus, the law presumes that
Esteban and Socorro jointly contributed to the acquisition of the Delpan property.
Edilberto's claim cannot be sustained. Both the RTC-Manila and the CA found that the Delpan property
was acquired prior to the marriage of Esteban and Socorro. Furthermore, even if payment of the
purchase price of the Delpan property was made by Evangeline, such payment was made on behalf of
her father. Article 1238 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1238.Payment made by a third person who does not intend to be reimbursed by
the debtor is deemed to be a donation, which requires the debtor's consent. But the
payment is in any case valid as to the creditor who has accepted it.
Thus, it is clear that Evangeline paid on behalf of her father, and the parties intended that the Delpan
property would be owned by and registered under the name of Esteban.
During trial, the Abuda spouses presented receipts evidencing payments of the amortizations for the
Delpan property. On the other hand, Edilberto failed to show any evidence showing Socorro's alleged
monetary contributions.