Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

ROWENA BALLETA, IRENE CA-G.R. CV No. 111175

BALLETA-DIAZ and VIRGINIA
DELA CRUZ-BALLETA, Members:
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
LAMPAS PERALTA, F., Chairperson
ZALAMEDA, R.V., and
- versus - INTING, H.J.P.B., J.J.

SOCORRO VILLANUEVA-BALLETA,
MARY GRACE V. BALLETA, Promulgated:
IRENEO V. BALLETA, JR.,
Defendants-Appellants. April 16, 2019
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

LAMPAS PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision dated

November 17, 20171 in Civil Case No. 13-945 (For: Judicial Partition
and Accounting) of Branch 142, Regional Trial Court, Makati City,
declaring the existence of co-ownership between the parties and
ordering the partition among them of the subject properties of the late
Ireneo de Guia Balleta, as well as the accounting of profits therefrom.

1
pp. 208-215, Records.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 2
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

THE ANTECEDENTS

Plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta is the first wife of

the late Ireneo de Guia Balleta, having contracted marriage on
September 28, 1968 before Municipal Mayor Maximo Estrella in the
City of Makati (then Makati, Rizal). 2 Plaintiffs-appellees Rowena
Balleta and Irene Balleta-Diaz are their daughters, born on April 14,
19693 and September 22, 1973,4 respectively.

Defendant-appellant Socorro Villanueva-Balleta is the second

wife of the late Ireneo De Guia Balleta. They were married on July 9,
1974 before Municipal Trial Court Judge Lucio M. Tianco in Pasay
City, during the subsistence of the aforementioned first marriage. 5
Defendants-appellants Mary Grace V. Balleta and Ireneo V. Balleta,
Jr. are the children of the late Ireneo de Guia Balleta and defendant-
appellant Socorro Villanueva-Balleta.6

On April 11, 2013, Ireneo de Guia Balleta died intestate, 7

leaving the following properties:

a. A parcel of land located in Makati City covered by

Transfer Cetificate of Title (TCT) No. S-108985
registered in the name of “Ireneo Balleta, married to
Socorro Villanueva,” with a total area of sixty-two (62)
square meters (“Makati property”),8 and

b. A parcel of land located in Parañaque City covered by

TCT No. 34544 registered in the name of “Socorro
Villanueva Balleta married to Ireneo de Guia Balleta,”

2
p. 149, Ibid.
3
p. 150, Ibid.
4
p. 151, Ibid.
5
p. 207, Ibid.
6
p. 1, Ibid.
7
p. 153, Ibid.
8
pp. 156-159, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 3
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

with a total area of two hundred fifty-two (252) square

meters (“Parañaque property”).9

On August 2, 2013, plaintiffs-appellees filed with the trial court

the subject Petition for Judicial Partition and Accounting, 10 alleging
that (i) plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta is the legal wife of
Ireneo de Guia Balleta and plaintiffs-appellees Rowena Balleta and
Irene Balleta-Diaz are their daughters; 11 (ii) defendant-appellant
Socorro Villanueva-Balleta is the second wife of Ireneo de Guia
Balleta and defendants-appellants Mary Grace V. Balleta and Ireneo
V. Balleta, Jr. are their illegitimate children; 12 (iii) when Ireneo de Guia
Balleta died intestate on April 11, 2013, plaintiffs-appellees and
defendants-appellants became the co-owners of two parcels of land
located in Makati City and Parañaque City, covered by TCT's Nos. S-
108985 and 34544, respectively;13 (iv) the subject properties were
acquired by Ireneo de Guia Balleta during the existence of his first
marriage with plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta because
their marriage had not been declared null and void; 14 and, (v) as legal
heirs of Ireneo de Guia Balleta, plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to
their just share over the subject properties. 15

However, according to defendants-appellants, (i) Ireneo de

Guia Balleta did not cohabit with plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz
Balleta and plaintiffs-appellees Rowena Balleta and Irene Balleta-
Diaz were not recognized by the former as his children; 16 (ii) the
marriage of Ireneo de Guia Balleta to defendant-appellant Socorro
Villanueva Balleta should be upheld as the same had not been
declared invalid by any court and hence, defendants-appellants Mary
Grace V. Balleta and Ireneo V. Balleta, Jr. are their legitimate
children;17 (iii) the Makati property which has an area of sixty-two (62)
9
pp. 161-165, Ibid.
10
pp. 1-4, Ibid.
11
p. 1, Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
p. 2, Ibid.1`
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
p. 35, Ibid.
17
Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 4
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

square meters was inherited by Ireneo de Guia Balleta from his

parents on April 21, 1981; hence, the same was a capital property
exclusively belonging to him;18 (iv) in 2003, Ireneo de Guia Balleta
sold thirty-one (31) square meters of the Makati property to his
brother Arsenio Balleta;19 (v) by reason of Ireneo de Guia Balleta's old
age and health condition, defendants-appellants obtained loans from
the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), with the Parañaque property
as collateral therefor;20 and, (vi) as of July 24, 2012, the two loans
with BPI were consolidated and defendant-appellant Ireneo V.
Balleta, Jr. and his wife Amelia R. Balleta assumed payment of the
balance of Php1,288,576.74.21 Defendants-appellants thus prayed
that the petition for judicial partition and accounting be dismissed for
lack of merit.

Pre-trial conference was held on July 6, 2017 wherein the

parties agreed on the following issues:

1. Whether or not plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased;

2. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to demand for partition and
accounting of the properties of the deceased;
3. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to share in the properties
left by the deceased.22

As the parties failed to stipulate on facts proposed by each

other, the pre-trial conference was terminated. 23

Trial ensued. Presented as lone witness for plaintiffs-appellees

was plaintiff-appellee Rowena Balleta, 24 while the defense witnesses
presented were defendant-appellant Ireneo V. Balleta, Jr. 25 and Ma.
Odessa Francisco Balleta, defendants-appellants' cousin. 26

18
p. 36, Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
pp. 37-38, Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
pp. 140-141, Ibid.
23
p. 142, Ibid.
24
p. 144, Ibid.
25
TSN dated August 4, 2017.
26
TSN dated August 18, 2017.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 5
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

Plaintiffs-appellees submitted in evidence documentary exhibits

consisting of the Marriage Contract between Ireneo de Guia Balleta
and plaintiff-appellee Virginia dela Cruz Balleta, 27 Certificate of Live
Birth of Rowena Balleta,28 Certificate of Live Birth of Irene dela Cruz
Balleta,29 NSO Certificate of List of Marriages of Ireneo de Guia
Balleta,30 Certificate of Death of Ireneo de Guia Balleta, 31 certified true
copies of TCT's Nos. S-108985 and 34544, 32 Notices of Tax
Assessment,33 Tax Declaration of Real Property, 34 Certificates of
Baptism35 and picture of Ireneo de Guia Balleta and plaintiff-appellee
Rowena Balleta.36

Defendants-appellants, on the other hand, submitted in

evidence the following documentary exhibits: sworn statement of
Adoracion Capalad attesting that plaintiff-appellee Virginia Villanueva
Balleta is a prostitute,37 transmittal letter of said sworn statement, 38
Subdivision Plan of the Makati property, 39 Deed of Absolute Sale
between Ireneo Balleta and Arsenio Balleta over a 31-square-meter
portion of the Makati property, 40 Certificate of Confinement of Ireneo
de Guia Balleta and Medico-Legal Report, 41 letter dated August 6,
2012 from BPI approving a bank loan amounting to
Php1,288,576.74,42 Amendment to Mortgage Loan Agreement, 43
Disclosure Statement on Loan/Credit Transaction for the restructured
bank loan of Php1,288,576.74, 44 Statement of Account to Fully Pay

27
Exhibit “A”
28
Exhibit “B”
29
Exhibit “C”
30
Exhibit “D”
31
Exhibit “E”
32
Exhibits “F” and “G”
33
Exhibits “H” to “J”
34
Exhibit “K”
35
Exhibits “L” and “M”
36
Exhibit “N”
37
Exhibit “1”
38
Exhibit “2”
39
Exhibit “3”
40
Exhibit “4”
41
Exhibits “7” and “8”
42
Exhibit “9”
43
Exhibit “10”
44
Exhibit “11”
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 6
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

the BPI bank loan with a balance of Php1,083,176.91, 45 and Marriage

Contract between Ireneo de Guia Balleta and defendant-appellant
Socorro Villanueva-Balleta.46

On November 17, 2017, the trial court rendered a Decision 47

declaring the existence of co-ownership between the parties over the
Makati and Parañaque properties left by Ireneo de Guia Balleta, and
ordering the partition of said properties among them and accounting
of profits received therefrom. Thus:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the

court declares that co-ownership exists and partition of the
Makati and Parañaque properties is proper. Accounting of profits
received by the defendants from the Makati (TCT No. S-108985
& registered in the name of Ireneo Balleta married to Socorro
Villanueva) and Parañaque (TCT No. 34544 registered in the
name of Socorro Villanueva Balleta married to ireneo de Guia
Balleta) properties is in order. The parties are enjoined to submit
within thirty (3) days from receipt, partition of the said properties,
as well as the proper instruments of conveyance thereof.

SO ORDERED.48

Defendants-appellants moved for reconsideration 49 of the

Decision dated November 17, 2017, but the same was denied by the
trial court in an Order dated January 5, 2018. 50

Hence, defendants-appellants filed the present appeal based

on the following assignment of errors:

The lower court committed reversible errors and gravely

abused its discretion in:

45
Exhibit “12”
46
Exhibit “13”
47
pp. 208-215, Records.
48
p. 214, Ibid.
49
pp. 216-220, Ibid.
50
p. 221, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 7
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

a) RULING THAT CO-OWNERSHIP EXISTS AND

PARTITION OF THE MAKATI AND PARAÑAQUE PROPERTIES IS
PROPER.

b) RULING THAT THE MAKATI PROPERTY BELONGS

TO THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP.

c) RULING THAT THE PARAÑAQUE PROPERTY WAS

ACQUIRED THRU THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT OF DECEASED
IRENEO BALLETA.

d) RULING THAT BOTH THE MAKATI AND

PARAÑAQUE PROPERTIES WERE ACQUIRED DURING THE
MARRIAGE OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VIRGINIA BALLETA AND
DECEASED IRENEO BALLETA.51

THE ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in declaring the

existence of co-ownership between the parties, as heirs
of the late Ireneo de Guia Balleta, and in ordering the
partition of the Makati and Parañaque properties among
them and accounting of profits received therefrom.

THE COURT'S RULING

In its Decision dated November 17, 2017, 52 the trial court

declared the existence of co-ownership between the parties and
ordered the partition of the Makati and Parañaque properties left by
Ireneo de Guia Balleta and accounting of the profits received
therefrom, for the following reasons: (i) on July 9, 1974, Ireneo de
Guia Balleta contracted marriage with defendant-appellant Socorro

51
p. 26, Rollo.
52
pp. 208-215, Records.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 8
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

Villanueva-Balleta during the subsistence of his first marriage with

plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta; 53 (ii) the Makati property,
which was acquired by Ireneo de Guia Balleta while his marriage with
plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta still subsists, formed part
of their conjugal partnership; 54 (iii) the sale by Ireneo de Guia Balleta
of the property belonging to the conjugal partnership without the
consent of his wife was void ab initio;55 (iv) the Parañaque property
purchased by Ireneo de Guia Balleta in 2006 or 2007 using his
retirement benefits also formed part of his conjugal partnership with
plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta; 56 and, (v) by registering
the Parañaque property in the name of defendant-appellant Socorro
Villanueva-Balleta, only an implied trust was created and the latter is
deemed to be merely holding the property in trust. 57

In the present appeal,58 defendants-appellants asseverate that

plaintiffs-appellees have no right to compel the partition of the subject
properties because (i) plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta and
Ireneo de Guia Balleta never cohabited or lived together as husband
and wife, and plaintiffs-appellees Rowena Balleta and Irene Balleta-
Diaz were not acknowledged by Ireneo de Guia Balleta as his
children;59 (ii) the Makati property is the exclusive property of Ireneo
de Guia Balleta since he inherited the same from his parents on April
21, 1981, as evidenced by the subdivision survey plan and TCT No.
S-108985;60 (iii) since the Makati property is an exclusive property of
Ireneo de Guia Balleta, he has the power to sell the same, even
without the consent of plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta; 61
and, (iv) the Parañaque property belongs to defendant-appellant
Socorro Villanueva-Balleta since she purchased the same out of her
own earnings from her sari-sari store on December 13, 1989. 62
53
p. 209, Ibid.
54
pp. 210-211, Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
p. 212, Ibid.
57
Ibid.
58
pp. 26-32, Rollo.
59
pp. 28-29, Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.
62
p. 30, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 9
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

The asseverations do not impress.

Section 1, Rule 69, Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. — A

person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do
so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature
and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate
of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other
persons interested in the property.

The remedy of judicial partition under Rule 69, Revised Rules of

Court is a judicial controversy between persons who, being co-owners
or coparceners63 of common property, seek to secure a division or
partition thereof among themselves, giving to each one of them the
part corresponding to him.64 The object of partition is to enable those
who own property as joint tenants, or coparceners, or tenants in
common to put an end to the joint tenancy so as to vest in each a sole
estate in specific property or an allotment in the lands or tenements. 65
It is typically brought by a person claiming to be the owner of a
specified property against a defendant or defendants whom the
plaintiff recognizes to be his co-owners and is premised on the
existence or non-existence of co-ownership between the parties. 66
Hence, unless and until the issue of co-ownership is definitively
resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition of an estate. 67

As enunciated in Leonardo Lim De Mesa vs. Court of Appeals,

68
et al., the determination of the existence of co-ownership is the first
stage to accord with the remedy of judicial partition, thus:

The first stage of an action for judicial partition and/or

accounting is concerned with the determination of whether or not a
co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper, that is, it is not
63
Per New World Dictionary of the American Laguage (Second Edition, 1980), a coparcener is a
person who shares jointly with others in an inheritance.
64
Berlinda Oribello vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 163504, 765 SCRA 18, August 5, 2015.
65
Ibid.
66
Manuel L. Bautista, et al. vs. Margarito L. Bautista, G.R. No.202088, March 8, 2017.
67
Ibid.
68
G.R. No. 109387, 231 SCRA 773, April 25, 1994.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 10
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

otherwise legally proscribed and may be made by voluntary

agreement of all the parties interested in the property. This phase
may end in a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to the desired
partition either because a co-ownership does not exist or a partition
is legally prohibited. It may also end, on the other hand, with an
adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, that partition is
proper in the premises, and that an accounting of rents and profits
received by the defendant from the real estate in question is in
order. In the latter case, "the parties may, if they are able to agree,
make partition among themselves by proper instruments of
conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed
upon by all the parties." In either case, whether the action is
dismissed or partition and/or accounting is decreed, the order is a
final one and may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby.

Thus, the trial court was correct in making a determination on

the existence of co-ownership between the parties, before resolving
the issue of partition.

For clarity, it is beyond dispute that the late Ireneo de Guia

Balleta and plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta got married
on September 28, 1968, as evidenced by their Marriage Contract 69
and the Certification dated April 29, 2013 issued by the National
Statistics Office.70 Notably, defendants-appellants never assailed the
validity of said marriage.

In their Appellants' Brief,71 defendants-appellants even

mentioned their admission in their answer regarding said first
marriage and the acquisition of the Makati and Parañaque properties
by Ireneo de Guia Balleta during the subsistence of said marriage.
Thus:

2. In the Answer of defendants-appellants, they admitted that

deceased IRENEO BALLETA contracted two marriages, one with
plaintiff-appellee, VIRGINIA DELA CRUZ on September 28, 1968
and another one with defendant-appellant, SOCORRO
VILLANUEVA on November 20, 1974; that the properties covered
69
p. 149, Records.
70
p. 152, Ibid.
71
pp. 26-32, Rollo.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 11
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

by TCT No. S-108985 situated at Makati City; and TCT No. 34544
situated at Parañaque City were both acquired AFTER the
marriage of plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz and deceased
Ireneo Balleta on September 28, 1968, i.e., on April 21, 1981 and
December 13, 1989.72 (Underscoring supplied)

When plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta and Ireneo de

Guia Balleta were married on September 28, 1968, the Civil Code
was still the operative law on marriages. The presumption, absent any
evidence to the contrary, is that they were married under the regime
of the conjugal partnership of gains. 73 Article 119 of the Civil Code
thus provides:

Art. 119. The future spouses may in the marriage settlements

agree upon absolute or relative community of property, or upon
complete separation of property, or upon any other regime. In the
absence of marriage settlements, or when the same are void, the
system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains as
established in this Code, shall govern the property relations between
husband and wife. (Underlining supplied)

However, with the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3,

1988, Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains in the Family Code
was made applicable to conjugal partnership of gains already
established before its effectivity, unless vested rights have already
been acquired under the Civil Code or other laws. Thus:

Chapter 4. Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Section 1. General Provisions

Art. 105.xxx

The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal

partnerships of gains already established between spouses before
the effectivity of this Code, without prejudice to vested rights
already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws,
as provided in Article 255. (Underlining supplied)
72
p. 27, Ibid.
73
Efren Pana vs. Heirs of Jose Juanite, Sr. et al., G.R. No. 164201, December 10, 2012.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 12
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

Pertinently, Article 106 of the Family Code defines conjugal

partnership of gains, as follows:

Art. 106. Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains,

the husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds,
products, fruits and income from their separate properties and
those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or by
chance and, upon dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership,
the net gains or benefits obtained by either or both spouses shall
be divided equally between them, unless otherwise agreed in the
marriage settlements. (Underlining supplied)

Under Article 116 of the Family Code, all property acquired

during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been
made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is
presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. 74 The
presumption may be rebutted only with strong, clear, categorical and
convincing evidence.75 There must be strict proof of the exclusive
ownership of one of the spouses, and the burden of proof rests upon
the party asserting it.76 This is counter-balanced by the requirement
that the properties must first be proven to have been acquired during
the marriage before they are presumed conjugal.77

In the present case, since there is no question that the Makati

and Parañaque properties left by Ireneo de Guia Balleta were
acquired during his marriage with Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta, the
same properties are presumed to belong to their conjugal partnership.

Defendants-appellants' allegation that the Makati property was

inherited by Ireneo de Guia Balleta from his parents and the same
was his exclusive property, is bereft of evidentiary support. Aside
from defendant-appellant Ireneo V. Balleta, Jr.'s self-serving
testimony that Ireneo de Guia Balleta inherited said Makati property

74
Article 116 of the Family Code.
75
Spouses Coja vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 151153, 539 SCRA 517, December 10,
2007.
76
Ibid.
77
Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143286, 427 SCRA 439, April 14, 2004.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 13
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

from his parents,78 there is nothing in the records to show that said
property indeed belonged to Ireneo de Guia Balleta's parents. What is
clear on the face of TCT No. S-108985 is that the Makati property
was transferred and registered in the name of “Ireneo Balleta,
married to Socorro Villanueva” on April 21, 1981.79 Thus, the
acquisition of the Makati property was during the subsistence of
Ireneo de Guia Balleta's marriage with plaintiff-appellant Virginia Dela
Cruz-Balleta.

That the Makati property was registered in the name of “Ireneo

Balleta, married to Socorro Villanueva,” does not necessarily mean
that it no longer forms part of his conjugal properties with plaintiff-
appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta. Registration of a property alone
in the name of one spouse does not destroy its conjugal nature. What
is material is the time when the property was acquired. 80 The
registration of the property is not conclusive evidence of the exclusive
ownership of the husband or the wife. 81 Although the property appears
to be registered in the name of the husband, it has the inherent
character of conjugal property if it was acquired for valuable
consideration during marriage. It retains its conjugal nature. 82

Anent the Parañaque property, defendants-appellants claim that

the same was the exclusive property of defendant-appellant Socorro
Villanueva-Balleta because the same was exclusively registered in
her name.83 They point out that it was defendant-appellant Socorro
Villanueva-Balleta alone who purchased the Parañaque property out
of her own earnings from her business. 84

The claim is unfounded.

78
p. 257, Records.
79
p. 156, Records.
80
Philippine National Bank vs. Jose Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 182839, 724 SCRA 280, June 2,
2014.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid.
83
p. 30, Rollo.
84
Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 14
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

Ireneo de Guia Balleta and defendant-appellant Socorro

Villanueva-Balleta were not capacitated to marry each other at the
time of their cohabitation because Ireneo de Guia Balleta was legally
married to plaintiff-appellee Virginia Dela Cruz-Balleta. Their property
regime, therefore, is governed by Article 148 of the Family Code,
which applies to bigamous marriages, adulterous relationships,
relationships in a state of concubinage, relationships where both man
and woman are married to other persons, and multiple alliances of the
same married man. Thus:
Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the
preceding Article,85 only the properties acquired by both of the
parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or
industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their
respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary,
their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be
equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits
of money and evidences of credit.

If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her

share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community
or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. xxx
(Underlining supplied)

Accordingly, in cases of cohabitation falling under Article 148 of

the Family Code, only the properties acquired by both of the parties
through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry
shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective
contributions. Proof of actual contribution is required. 86 As it is, the
regime of limited co-ownership of property governing the union of
parties who are not legally capacitated to marry each other, but who
nonetheless live together as husband and wife, applies to properties
acquired during said cohabitation in proportion to their respective
contributions.87 Co-ownership will only be up to the extent of the
proven actual contribution of money, property or industry. Absent
85
Article 147 of the Family Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not
barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but who are not married or whose marriage is
nonetheless void.
86
Lupo Atienza vs. Yolanda De Castro, G.R. No. 169698, 508 SCRA 593, November 29, 2006.
87
Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 15
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

proof of the extent thereof, their contributions and corresponding

shares shall be presumed to be equal.88

In this case, defendant-appellant Ireneo V. Balleta, Jr. testified

that the Parañaque property was registered in the name of his
mother, defendant-appellant Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, because she
purchased the same using her own savings from her business. 89 This
is readily negated by the very own testimony of defendant-appellant
Ireneo V. Balleta, Jr. himself. On cross-examination, he stated that (i)
defendant-appellant Socorro Villanueva-Balleta's mini-grocery store
and purified water businesses were established only in 2007; and (ii)
prior to 2007, defendant-appellant Socorro Villanueva-Balleta was
unemployed and a plain housewife while his father was the one
working for the family.90 Thus:

ATTY. EVASCO:
Mr. Witness, you likewise mentioned that your mother
acquired a property, according to you, through hard work and
savings as a result of their business, what business are you
referring to, Mr. Witness?

IRENEO BALLETA, JR.

Mini grocery store and purified water business, attorney.

ATTY. EVASCO:
Aside from this business, did your mother had [sic] work
during that time?

IRENEO BALLETA, JR.

Yes, she managed the businesses.

ATTY. EVASCO:
Prior to the establishment of these businesses, Mr. Witness,
was your mother employed?

IRENEO BALLETA, JR.

No, attorney.

88
Ibid.
89
p. 282, Records.
90
pp. 292-294, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 16
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

ATTY. EVASCO:
Would you agree with me that she was a plain housewife?

IRENEO BALLETA, JR.

Yes, attorney.

ATTY. EVASCO:
Mr. Witness, would you state for the record, when were
these mini grocery store and watre businesses established?

xxx xxx xxx

IRENEO BALLETA, JR.

2007, attorney.

ATTY. EVASCO:
And prior to that, it was only your father who was employed,
is that correct?

IRENEO BALLETA, JR.

At that time my father was already retired. 91 (Underlining
supplied)

Clearly, since the Parañaque property was registered in the

name of defendant-appellant Socorro Villanueva-Balleta on
December 13, 1989, per TCT NO. 34544,92 the same could not have
been acquired by her out of her savings from her businesses because
she established the alleged businesses only in 2007.

Hence, the Court finds no cogent basis to disturb the finding of

the trial court that “the registration of the [Parañaque] property in
Socorro's name was clearly designed to deprive Ireneo's legal spouse
and compulsory heirs of ownership” and defendant-appellant Socorro
Villanueva-Balleta was “deemed to hold the [Parañaque] property in
trust for them.” Said the trial court:

When a common-law couple have a legal impediment to

marriage, only the property acquired by them – through their actual

91
Ibid.
92
p. 161, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 17
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

joint contribution of money, property or industry – shall be owned by

them in common and in proportion to their respective contributions.
xxx Defendants admitted that Socorro was a housekeeper while
Ireneo was gainfully employed, when they started living together. He,
thereafter retired and he must have earned sizeable retirement benefit.
The subsequent registration of the realty in Socorro's name is
tantamount to a donation by Ireneo to Socorro. By express provision of
Article 739(1) of the Civil Code, such donation is void. xxx

xxx xxx xxx

The registration of the property in Socorro's name, aims to

protect dominion; it cannot be used as an instrument for the
deprivation of ownership. It has been held that property is conjugal if
acquired in a common-law relationship during the subsistence of a
pre-existing legal marriage, even if it is titled in the name of the
common-law wife. Here, aconstructive trust is deemed created under
Article 1456 of the Civil Code. If property is acquired through mistake
or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a
trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the
property comes. The registration of the property in Socorro's namewas
clearly designed to deprive Ireneo's legal spouse and compulsory
heirs of ownership. By operation of law, Socorro is deemed to hold the
property in trust for them. xxx. 93 (Underlining supplied)

Verily, the trial court correctly declared that co-ownership exists

between the parties and the partition of the Makati and Parañaque
properties, as well as accounting of profits received by defendants-
appellants therefrom, are in order.

Then again, settled is the doctrine that in a civil case, final and
conclusive are the factual findings of the court, if supported by clear
and convincing evidence on record.94 Findings of facts of the trial
court will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or
circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or
misinterpreted which would otherwise materially affect the disposition
of the case.95 In this case, the Court sees no compelling reason to
depart from this rule.
93
p. 212, Ibid.
94
Gaje, et. al. vs. Vda. De Dalisay, et. al., G.R. No. 158762, 520 SCRA 272, April 3, 2007.
95
People of the Philippines vs. Manjares, G.R. No. 185844, 661 SCRA 227, November 23, 2011.
CA-G.R. CV No. 111175 18
Rowena Balleta, et al. vs. Socorro Villanueva-Balleta, et. al.
DECISION
x------------------------------------x

WHEREFORE, the appeal is denied for lack of merit.

Consequently, the Decision dated November 17, 2017 of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

RODIL V. ZALAMEDA HENRI JEAN PAUL B. INTING

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII , Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division