Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 186 views

    Francisco V CA

    Uploaded by

    Quake G.
    The petitioner failed to prove that the properties, including a parcel of land inherited by Eusebio from his parents, a house and store established during his first marriage, and another land purchased during his first marriage, were acquired during his marriage to the petitioner. The documents presented, such as building permits and business licenses listing the petitioner's name, did not sufficiently demonstrate the properties were acquired during the marriage. Therefore, the properties were considered Eusebio's separate properties and not part of the conjugal partnership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Francisco V CA

    Uploaded by

    Quake G.
    186 views2 pages
    The petitioner failed to prove that the properties, including a parcel of land inherited by Eusebio from his parents, a house and store established during his first marriage, and another land purchased during his first marriage, were acquired during his marriage to the petitioner. The documents presented, such as building permits and business licenses listing the petitioner's name, did not sufficiently demonstrate the properties were acquired during the marriage. Therefore, the properties were considered Eusebio's separate properties and not part of the conjugal partnership.

    Original Description:

    Case digest for Francisco v CA

    Original Title

    Francisco v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner failed to prove that the properties, including a parcel of land inherited by Eusebio from his parents, a house and store established during his first marriage, and another land purchased during his first marriage, were acquired during his marriage to the petitioner. The documents presented, such as building permits and business licenses listing the petitioner's name, did not sufficiently demonstrate the properties were acquired during the marriage. Therefore, the properties were considered Eusebio's separate properties and not part of the conjugal partnership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    186 views2 pages

    Francisco V CA

    Uploaded by

    Quake G.
    The petitioner failed to prove that the properties, including a parcel of land inherited by Eusebio from his parents, a house and store established during his first marriage, and another land purchased during his first marriage, were acquired during his marriage to the petitioner. The documents presented, such as building permits and business licenses listing the petitioner's name, did not sufficiently demonstrate the properties were acquired during the marriage. Therefore, the properties were considered Eusebio's separate properties and not part of the conjugal partnership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS 1

    FRANCISCO V. COURT OF APPEALS that it pertains exclusively to the


    November 5, 1998 | J. Quisumbing husband or to the wife”. However, the
    Topic: Conjugal Partnership of Gains party who invokes this presumption
    must first prove that the property in
    Doctrine: All property of the marriage is
    controversy was acquired during the
    presumed to belong to the conjugal
    marriage. Needless to say, the
    partnership. However, the party who presumption refers only to the property
    invokes this presumption must first prove acquired during the marriage and does
    that the property in controversy was not operate when there is no showing as
    acquired during the marriage. to when property alleged to be conjugal
    was acquired.

    FACTS ● In this case, petitioner failed to adduce


    ● Petitioner, Teresita Francisco, is the ample evidence to show that the
    legal wife of respondent, Eusebio properties which she claimed to be
    Francisco by his second marriage conjugal were acquired during her
    Conchita Evangelista, Araceli F. Marilla marriage with Eusebio.
    and Antonio Francisco, also
    respondents, are children of Eusebio by
    his first marriage. RULING:
    ● Petitioner and respondent acquired a
    sari-sari store and a house and lot. Properties are not part of the conjugal property.
    ● Eusebio got cancer and was unable to
    administer the property. Petitioner Detailed explanation:
    claims that the children got Eusebio to
    authorize Conchita to administer the ● With respect to the land at Col. Cruz St.,
    property via general power of attorney. Balite, Rodriguez, Rizal, petitioner failed
    ● Petitioner files to cancel general power
    to refute the testimony of Eusebio that
    of attorney, for compensation of
    he inherited the same from his parents.
    damages and to be declared the
    Interestingly, petitioner even admitted
    administratrix of the property.
    that Eusebio brought into their marriage
    the said land, albeit in the concept of a
    Relevant Provisions:
    possessor only as it was not yet
    ● NCC, Art. 160
    registered in his name.

    ISSUES ● Whether Eusebio succeeded to the


    ● Insert the RELEVANT issues only - property prior or subsequent to his
    YES / NO second marriage is inconsequential. The
    ● Relevant issues = those related to the
    property should be regarded as his own
    topic - YES / NO
    exclusively, as a matter of law, pursuant
    to Article 148 of the New Civil Code.
    HELD:
    ● NO, it was not a part of their conjugal ● Essentially, property already owned by a
    property. spouse prior to the marriage, and
    brought to the marriage, is considered
    ● Article 160 of the New Civil Code his or her separate property.
    provides that “all property of the Acquisitions by lucrative title refers to
    marriage is presumed to belong to the properties acquired gratuitously and
    conjugal partnership, unless it be proved

    Batica & Mendoza| A2022


    November 5, 2018
    CRIMINAL LAW 1
    2
    include those acquired by either spouse
    during the marriage by inheritance, devise,
    legacy, or donation (hence, it is still a
    separate property even if obtained during
    marriage).

    ● As regards the house, apartment and sari-


    sari store, private respondents aver that
    these properties were either constructed or
    established by their father during his first
    marriage. On the other hand, petitioner
    insists that the said assets belong to
    conjugal partnership. In support of her
    claim, petitioner relied on the building
    permits for the house and the apartment,
    with her as the applicant although in the
    name of Eusebio. She also invoked the
    business license for the sari-sari store
    issued in her name alone. However, the
    aforementioned documents in no way prove
    that the improvements were acquired during
    the second marriage. And the fact that one
    is the applicant or licensee is not
    determinative of the issue as to whether or
    not the property is conjugal.

    ● Regarding the property at San Isidro,


    Rodriguez, Rizal, private respondents
    assert that their father purchased it during
    the lifetime of their mother. In contrast,
    petitioner claims ownership over said
    property inasmuch as the title thereto is
    registered in the name of “Eusebio
    Francisco, married to Teresita Francisco.”
    The fact that the land was registered in the
    name of “Eusebio Francisco, married to
    Teresita Francisco”, is no proof that the
    property was acquired during the spouses
    coverture. The phrase “married to”
    preceding “Teresita Francisco” is merely
    descriptive of the civil status of Eusebio
    Francisco.

    You might also like