Belcodero v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alayo D. Bosing married Juliana Oday in 1927 and had three children. In 1946, Alayo deserted Juliana and began living with Josefa Rivera, with whom he had a child, Josephine Bosing (now Belcodero). On August 23, 1949, Alayo purchased a parcel of land on installment from Magdalena Estate, Inc., indicating his civil status as married to Josefa R. Bosing. In 1959, he authorized the transfer of the lot to Josefa. The final deed of sale was executed on October 24, 1959, and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 48790 was issued in the name of Josefa R. Bosing, married to Alayo Bosing. Notably, Alayo married Josefa on June 6, 1958, while his marriage to Juliana was still subsisting. Alayo died on March 11, 1967. On September 17, 1970, Josefa and Josephine executed an extrajudicial partition and sale, describing the lot as "conjugal property" of Josefa and Alayo. Josefa conveyed her supposed one-half (1/2) interest as surviving spouse and her one-fourth (1/4) interest as heir to Josephine for P10,000.00, consolidating full "ownership" in Josephine, who also inherited a one-fourth (1/4) interest as a child of Alayo. A new TCT No. 198840 was issued in Josephine's name on June 6, 1974. Procedural History: On October 30, 1980, Juliana and her three legitimate children filed an action for reconveyance. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Josephine to execute a deed of reconveyance and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the reconveyance order but reversed the award of damages. The Petition: Petitioners (Josephine Bosing) seek review, raising issues of prescription, the basis of the action for reconveyance, exclusive ownership of the property, and the denial of a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for reconveyance had prescribed and whether the property in question belongs exclusively to the petitioners. Whether the action for reconveyance is based upon an implied or constructive trust. Whether the respondent court erred in not granting petitioner's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals ordering the reconveyance of the property. The Court held that the property was part of the conjugal partnership of Alayo and his lawful wife Juliana, that the action for reconveyance had not prescribed, and that the denial of the motion for a new trial was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
On the ownership of the property, prescription, and petitioners' claim: The Court reiterated the presumption that all property of the marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership unless proven otherwise. It found that the property, acquired by Alayo during his marriage to Juliana, remained part of their conjugal partnership, despite being titled in the name of Josefa. Josefa's subsequent extrajudicial partition and sale, describing the property as "conjugal," further supported this. A constructive trust was created by operation of law when the adjudication of ownership was made following Alayo's demise. The prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust is ten (10) years, counted from the registration of the transaction. The action was seasonably filed. The Court rejected the petitioners' claim that the property belonged exclusively to them, emphasizing that Alayo's acquisition of the property during his lawful marriage established it as conjugal property. On the basis of the action for reconveyance: The Court affirmed that the action was based on an implied or constructive trust created by operation of law. Article 1456 of the Civil Code states that if property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. In this case, Josefa and Josephine, by virtue of the extrajudicial partition and sale, were deemed to have acquired the property through an implied trust for the benefit of Alayo's legal heirs. On the denial of the motion for a new trial: The Court found no merit in the grounds presented for a new trial. The alleged evidence that Josefa sold property in 1948 was considered forgotten, not newly discovered, and even if proven, did not establish that the proceeds were used for the lot in question. The claim that Juliana "forfeited" her rights by marrying another man was also dismissed, as no action for legal separation was filed during Alayo's lifetime, and it was too late to raise the issue. The Court concluded that even if a new trial were granted, it would not alter the outcome of the case.
Main Doctrine
Property acquired by a husband during his marriage, even if titled in the name of his common-law spouse and paid for using funds from a sale of property by the common-law spouse, remains part of the conjugal partnership of the husband and his lawful wife, unless proven otherwise. An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust arising from such acquisition is subject to a ten-year prescriptive period from the registration of the title.