Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Laperal V Katigbak

    Uploaded by

    ran
    115 views1 page
    1) The case involved a dispute over property registered under Evelina Kalaw-Katigbak that was acquired during her marriage to Ramon Katigbak. 2) The trial court had ruled the property was Evelina's separate or paraphernal property. 3) The appellants, the Laperals, argued the property was part of the conjugal partnership of Evelina and Ramon. 4) The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling, finding the presumption of conjugality was rebutted because the property was registered under Evelina's name, the purchase price came from her mother, and it was the practice of Evelina's parents to provide children with money

    Original Description:

    pfr

    Original Title

    Laperal v Katigbak

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The case involved a dispute over property registered under Evelina Kalaw-Katigbak that was acquired during her marriage to Ramon Katigbak. 2) The trial court had ruled the property was Evelina's separate or paraphernal property. 3) The appellants, the Laperals, argued the property was part of the conjugal partnership of Evelina and Ramon. 4) The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling, finding the presumption of conjugality was rebutted because the property was registered under Evelina's name, the purchase price came from her mother, and it was the practice of Evelina's parents to provide children with money

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    115 views1 page

    Laperal V Katigbak

    Uploaded by

    ran
    1) The case involved a dispute over property registered under Evelina Kalaw-Katigbak that was acquired during her marriage to Ramon Katigbak. 2) The trial court had ruled the property was Evelina's separate or paraphernal property. 3) The appellants, the Laperals, argued the property was part of the conjugal partnership of Evelina and Ramon. 4) The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling, finding the presumption of conjugality was rebutted because the property was registered under Evelina's name, the purchase price came from her mother, and it was the practice of Evelina's parents to provide children with money

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    No. L-16991. March 31, 1964.

    ROBERTO LAPERAL, JR., ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. RAMON L. KATIGBAK, ET AL., defendants-
    appellees.

    PONENTE: REGALA, J.

    FACTS:

    1. Ramon Katigbak and Evelina Kalaw were married in 1938, either of them had brought properties unto the marriage.
    Ramon was an Asst. Atty. of the Bank of the Phil. Islands wherein his monthly salary was P200.00 (id)
    2. The property in question was registered in the name of Evelina Kalaw-Katigbak.
    3. 1939 - Ramon Katigbak, made a manifestation that he had no interest in the properties.
    4. Evelina declares that her mother Pura Villanueva bought the property for her and had placed it only in her name as
    was the practice of her mother.
    5. Court of First Instance of Manila declared the property to be the separate or paraphernal property of the defendant-
    appellee Evelina Kalaw.
    6. Plaintiffs-appellants, the spouses Laperal, disagree with the said finding. Hence they appealed from the said decision.
    They maintain that the realty in question, with its improvements and income, are conjugal assets of the spouses Evelina
    Kalaw and Ramon Katigbak.
    7. This litigation is a sequel to the one instituted by the Laperals against Katigbak and Kalaw in August, 1950 where in
    they sought from the defendants the recovery of money evidenced by promissory notes executed in favor of the
    Laperals by Katigbak and for the return of jewelry delivered by the Laperals to Katigbak for sale on commission which
    the court granted hence the Laperals are after Katigbak and Kalaw.

    ISSUE/S:

    Whether or not the above findings warrant a rejection of the presumption that the property disputed, for the reason that
    it was acquired during the marriage, is conjugal.

    RULING:

    The property in question is paraphernal despite it having been acquired during coverture.

    RATIO:

    The court held that properties acquired during the marriage are, by law, presumed conjugal. (Art. 160, Civil Code) The
    presumption, however, is not conclusive but merely rebuttable, for the same law is unequivocal that it exists only "unless
    it be proved that it (the property) belongs exclusively to the husband or to the wife." The presumption has been
    sufficiently and convincingly disproven, the disputed land is in the name of the wife; the property was of such substantial
    value as the husband then by himself could not have afforded to buy; the purchase price was furnished by the wife's
    mother; it was established that it was a practice of the wife's parents to so provide their children with money to purchase
    realties for themselves; and, the husband expressly acknowledged in the deed of sale that he did not have any interest
    in the property.

    The Supreme Court in Coingco v Flores held that the presumption that the properties in litigation are conjugal properties
    because they were acquired during the coverture may be sufficiently rebutted by any one of the following facts: (1) the
    titles to them are in the name of the wife alone; (2) that the husband gave his marital consent to their being mortgaged
    by the wife; (3) that the wife was financially able to buy those properties. While it is true that each one of them, taken
    separately, may not be sufficient to overcome the above-quoted presumption established by Art. 1407 of the Civil Code,
    it is nonetheless true that all of them taken together, with all the other facts and circumstances established by the
    evidence, might be, and were, considered by the lower court as sufficient to rebut the same presumption."

    You might also like