Republic of the Philippines The antecedent facts were summarized by the CA as follows:

SUPREME COURT
Manila ATTY. LUNA, a practicing lawyer, was at first a name partner in
the prestigious law firm Sycip, Salazar, Luna, Manalo, Hernandez
FIRST DIVISION & Feliciano Law Offices at that time when he was living with his
first wife, herein intervenor-appellant Eugenia Zaballero-Luna
G.R. No. 171914               July 23, 2014 (EUGENIA), whom he initially married ina civil ceremony
conducted by the Justice of the Peace of Parañaque, Rizal on
September 10, 1947 and later solemnized in a church ceremony
SOLEDAD L. LAVADIA, Petitioner, 
at the Pro-Cathedral in San Miguel, Bulacan on September 12,
vs.
1948. In ATTY. LUNA’s marriage to EUGENIA, they begot seven
HEIRS OF JUAN LUCES LUNA, represented by GREGORIO Z.
(7) children, namely: Regina Maria L. Nadal, Juan Luis Luna,
LUNA and EUGENIA ZABALLERO-LUNA,Respondents.
Araceli Victoria L. Arellano, Ana Maria L. Tabunda, Gregorio
Macario Luna, Carolina Linda L. Tapia, and Cesar Antonio Luna.
DECISION After almost two (2) decades of marriage, ATTY. LUNA and
EUGENIA eventually agreed to live apart from each other in
BERSAMIN, J.: February 1966 and agreed to separation of property, to which
end, they entered into a written agreement entitled "AGREEMENT
Divorce between Filipinos is void and ineffectual under the FOR SEPARATION AND PROPERTY SETTLEMENT" dated
nationality rule adopted by Philippine law. Hence, any settlement November 12, 1975, whereby they agreed to live separately and
of property between the parties of the first marriage involving to dissolve and liquidate their conjugal partnership of property.
Filipinos submitted as an incident of a divorce obtained in a
foreign country lacks competent judicial approval, and cannot be On January 12, 1976, ATTY. LUNA obtained a divorce decree of
enforceable against the assets of the husband who contracts a his marriage with EUGENIA from the Civil and Commercial
subsequent marriage. Chamber of the First Circumscription of the Court of First Instance
of Sto. Domingo, Dominican Republic. Also in Sto.Domingo,
The Case Dominican Republic, on the same date, ATTY. LUNA contracted
another marriage, this time with SOLEDAD. Thereafter, ATTY.
The petitioner, the second wife of the late Atty. Juan Luces Luna, LUNA and SOLEDAD returned to the Philippines and lived
appeals the adverse decision promulgated on November 11, together as husband and wife until 1987.
2005,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with
modification the decision rendered on August 27, 2001 by the Sometime in 1977, ATTY. LUNA organized a new law firm
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 138, in Makati City. 2 The CA named: Luna, Puruganan, Sison and Ongkiko (LUPSICON) where
thereby denied her right in the 25/100 pro indiviso share of the ATTY. LUNA was the managing partner.
husband in a condominium unit, and in the law books of the
husband acquired during the second marriage. On February 14, 1978, LUPSICON through ATTY. LUNA
purchased from Tandang Sora Development Corporation the 6th
Antecedents Floor of Kalaw-Ledesma Condominium Project(condominium unit)
at Gamboa St., Makati City, consisting of 517.52 square meters,
for ₱1,449,056.00, to be paid on installment basis for 36months The 25/100 pro-indiviso share of ATTY. Luna in the condominium
starting on April 15, 1978. Said condominium unit was to be unit as well as the law books, office furniture and equipment
usedas law office of LUPSICON. After full payment, the Deed of became the subject of the complaint filed by SOLEDAD against
Absolute Sale over the condominium unit was executed on July the heirs of ATTY. JUAN with the RTC of Makati City, Branch 138,
15, 1983, and CCT No. 4779 was issued on August 10, 1983, on September 10, 1999, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-1644. The
which was registered bearing the following names: complaint alleged that the subject properties were acquired during
the existence of the marriage between ATTY. LUNA and
"JUAN LUCES LUNA, married to Soledad L. Luna (46/100); SOLEDAD through their joint efforts that since they had no
MARIO E. ONGKIKO, married to Sonia P.G. Ongkiko (25/100); children, SOLEDAD became co-owner of the said properties upon
GREGORIO R. PURUGANAN, married to Paz A. Puruganan the death of ATTY. LUNA to the extent of ¾ pro-indiviso share
(17/100); and TERESITA CRUZ SISON, married to Antonio J.M. consisting of her ½ share in the said properties plus her ½ share
Sison (12/100) x x x" Subsequently, 8/100 share of ATTY. LUNA in the net estate of ATTY. LUNA which was bequeathed to her in
and 17/100 share of Atty. Gregorio R. Puruganan in the the latter’s last will and testament; and thatthe heirs of ATTY.
condominium unit was sold to Atty. Mario E. Ongkiko, for which a LUNA through Gregorio Z. Luna excluded SOLEDAD from her
new CCT No. 21761 was issued on February 7, 1992 in the share in the subject properties. The complaint prayed that
following names: SOLEDAD be declared the owner of the ¾ portion of the subject
properties;that the same be partitioned; that an accounting of the
rentals on the condominium unit pertaining to the share of
"JUAN LUCES LUNA, married to Soledad L. Luna (38/100);
SOLEDAD be conducted; that a receiver be appointed to preserve
MARIO E. ONGKIKO, married to Sonia P.G. Ongkiko (50/100);
ad administer the subject properties;and that the heirs of ATTY.
TERESITA CRUZ SISON, married to Antonio J.M. Sison (12/100)
LUNA be ordered to pay attorney’s feesand costs of the suit to
x x x"
SOLEDAD.3
Sometime in 1992, LUPSICON was dissolved and the
Ruling of the RTC
condominium unit was partitioned by the partners but the same
was still registered in common under CCT No. 21716. The parties
stipulated that the interest of ATTY. LUNA over the condominium On August 27, 2001, the RTC rendered its decision after trial
unit would be 25/100 share. ATTY. LUNA thereafter established upon the aforementioned facts,4 disposing thusly:
and headed another law firm with Atty. Renato G. Dela Cruzand
used a portion of the office condominium unit as their office. The WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:
said law firm lasted until the death of ATTY. JUAN on July 12,
1997. (a) The 24/100 pro-indiviso share in the condominium unit
located at the SIXTH FLOOR of the KALAW LEDESMA
After the death of ATTY. JUAN, his share in the condominium unit CONDOMINIUM PROJECT covered by Condominium
including the lawbooks, office furniture and equipment found Certificate of Title No. 21761 consisting of FIVE
therein were taken over by Gregorio Z. Luna, ATTY. LUNA’s son HUNDRED SEVENTEEN (517/100) SQUARE METERS
of the first marriage. Gregorio Z. Luna thenleased out the 25/100 is adjudged to have been acquired by Juan Lucas Luna
portion of the condominium unit belonging to his father to Atty. through his sole industry;
Renato G. De la Cruz who established his own law firm named
Renato G. De la Cruz & Associates.
 (b) Plaintiff has no right as owner or under any other KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE UNIT,
concept over the condominium unit, hence the entry in BUT IGNORED OTHER PORTIONS OF HIS
Condominium Certificate of Title No. 21761 of the TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF-
Registry of Deeds of Makati with respect to the civil status APPELLANT;
of Juan Luces Luna should be changed from "JUAN
LUCES LUNA married to Soledad L. Luna" to "JUAN IV. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING
LUCES LUNA married to Eugenia Zaballero Luna"; SIGNIFICANCE TO THE FACT THAT THE CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN LUNA AND INTERVENOR-
(c) Plaintiff is declared to be the owner of the books APPELLANT WAS ALREADY DISSOLVED AND
Corpus Juris, Fletcher on Corporation, American LIQUIDATED PRIOR TO THE UNION OF PLAINTIFF-
Jurisprudence and Federal Supreme Court Reports found APPELLANT AND LUNA;
in the condominium unit and defendants are ordered to
deliver them to the plaintiff as soon as appropriate V. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE
arrangements have been madefor transport and storage. SIGNIFICANCE TO THE ABSENCE OF THE
DISPOSITION OF THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT IN THE
No pronouncement as to costs. HOLOGRAPHIC WILL OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT;

SO ORDERED.5 VI. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE

SIGNIFICANCE TO THE FACTTHAT THE NAME OF
Decision of the CA PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAR IN THE
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE EXECUTED BY TANDANG
SORA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OVER THE
Both parties appealed to the CA.6
CONDOMINIUM UNIT;
On her part, the petitioner assigned the following errors to the
VII. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT
RTC, namely:
NEITHER ARTICLE 148 OF THE FAMILYCODE NOR
ARTICLE 144 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PHILIPPINES ARE APPLICABLE;
CONDOMINIUM UNIT WAS ACQUIRED THRU THE
SOLE INDUSTRY OF ATTY. JUAN LUCES LUNA;
VIII. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING
THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION OF THE INTERVENOR-
II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN BARRED BY PESCRIPTION
PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE AND LACHES; and
MONEY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE
CONDOMINIUM UNIT;
IX. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT
EXPUNGING/DISMISSING THE INTERVENTION FOR
III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FAILURE OF INTERVENOR-APPELLANT TO PAY
CREDENCE TO PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF FILING FEE.7
GREGORIO LUNA, WHO HAS NO ACTUAL
In contrast, the respondents attributedthe following errors to the CONDOMINIUM PROJECT covered by Condominium
trial court, to wit: Certificate of Title No. 21761 consisting of FIVE
HUNDRED SEVENTEEN (517/100) (sic) SQUARE
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT METERS is hereby adjudged to defendants-appellants,
CERTAIN FOREIGN LAW BOOKS IN THE LAW OFFICE the heirs of Juan Luces Luna and Eugenia Zaballero-
OF ATTY. LUNA WERE BOUGHT WITH THE USE OF Luna (first marriage), having been acquired from the sole
PLAINTIFF’S MONEY; funds and sole industry of Juan Luces Luna while
marriage of Juan Luces Luna and Eugenia Zaballero-
Luna (first marriage) was still subsisting and valid;
II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
PLAINTIFF PROVED BY PREPONDERANCE OF
EVIDENCE (HER CLAIM OVER) THE SPECIFIED (b) Plaintiff-appellant Soledad Lavadia has no right as
FOREIGN LAW BOOKS FOUND IN ATTY. LUNA’S LAW owner or under any other concept over the condominium
OFFICE; and unit, hence the entry in Condominium Certificate of Title
No. 21761 of the Registry of Deeds ofMakati with respect
to the civil status of Juan Luces Luna should be changed
III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING
from "JUAN LUCES LUNA married to Soledad L. Luna" to
THAT, ASSUMING PLAINTIFF PAID FOR THE SAID
"JUAN LUCES LUNA married to Eugenia Zaballero
FOREIGN LAW BOOKS, THE RIGHT TO RECOVER
Luna";
THEM HAD PRESCRIBED AND BARRED BY LACHES
AND ESTOPPEL.8
(c) Defendants-appellants, the heirs of Juan Luces Luna
and Eugenia Zaballero-Luna(first marriage) are hereby
On November 11, 2005, the CA promulgated its assailed modified
declared to be the owner of the books Corpus Juris,
decision,9 holding and ruling:
Fletcher on Corporation, American Jurisprudence and
Federal Supreme Court Reports found in the
EUGENIA, the first wife, was the legitimate wife of ATTY. LUNA condominium unit.
until the latter’s death on July 12, 1997. The absolute divorce
decree obtained by ATTY. LUNA inthe Dominican Republic did
No pronouncement as to costs.
not terminate his prior marriage with EUGENIA because foreign
divorce between Filipino citizens is not recognized in our
jurisdiction. x x x10 SO ORDERED.11

xxxx On March 13, 2006,12 the CA denied the petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration.13
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed August 27,
2001 Decision of the RTC of MakatiCity, Branch 138, is hereby Issues
MODIFIEDas follows:
In this appeal, the petitioner avers in her petition for review on
(a) The 25/100 pro-indiviso share in the condominium unit certiorarithat:
at the SIXTH FLOOR of the KALAW LEDESMA
 A. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the The first marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia, both Filipinos,
Agreement for Separation and Property Settlement was solemnized in the Philippines on September 10, 1947. The
executed by Luna and Respondent Eugenia was law in force at the time of the solemnization was the Spanish Civil
unenforceable; hence, their conjugal partnership was not Code, which adopted the nationality rule. The Civil Codecontinued
dissolved and liquidated; to follow the nationality rule, to the effect that Philippine laws
relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and
B. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not legal capacity of persons were binding upon citizens of the
recognizing the Dominican Republic court’s approval of Philippines, although living abroad. 15 Pursuant to the nationality
the Agreement; rule, Philippine laws governed thiscase by virtue of bothAtty. Luna
and Eugenio having remained Filipinos until the death of Atty.
Luna on July 12, 1997 terminated their marriage.
C. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that
Petitioner failed to adduce sufficient proof of actual
contribution to the acquisition of purchase of the From the time of the celebration ofthe first marriage on September
subjectcondominium unit; and 10, 1947 until the present, absolute divorce between Filipino
spouses has not been recognized in the Philippines. The non-
recognition of absolute divorce between Filipinos has remained
D. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that
even under the Family Code, 16 even if either or both of the
Petitioner was not entitled to the subject law books.14
spouses are residing abroad. 17 Indeed, the only two types of
defective marital unions under our laws have beenthe void and
The decisive question to be resolved is who among the the voidable marriages. As such, the remedies against such
contending parties should be entitled to the 25/100 pro defective marriages have been limited to the declaration of nullity
indivisoshare in the condominium unit; and to the law books (i.e., ofthe marriage and the annulment of the marriage.
Corpus Juris, Fletcher on Corporation, American Jurisprudence
and Federal Supreme Court Reports).
It is true that on January 12, 1976, the Court of First Instance
(CFI) of Sto. Domingo in the Dominican Republic issued the
The resolution of the decisive question requires the Court to Divorce Decree dissolving the first marriage of Atty. Luna and
ascertain the law that should determine, firstly, whether the Eugenia.18 Conformably with the nationality rule, however, the
divorce between Atty. Luna and Eugenia Zaballero-Luna divorce, even if voluntarily obtained abroad, did not dissolve the
(Eugenia) had validly dissolved the first marriage; and, secondly, marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia, which subsisted up to
whether the second marriage entered into by the late Atty. Luna the time of his death on July 12, 1997. This finding conforms to
and the petitioner entitled the latter to any rights in property. the Constitution, which characterizes marriage as an inviolable
Ruling of the Court social institution,19 and regards it as a special contract of
permanent union between a man and a woman for the
We affirm the modified decision of the CA. establishment of a conjugal and family life.20 The non-recognition
of absolute divorce in the Philippines is a manifestation of the
1. Atty. Luna’s first marriage with Eugenia respect for the sanctity of the marital union especially among
subsisted up to the time of his death Filipino citizens. It affirms that the extinguishment of a valid
marriage must be grounded only upon the death of either spouse,
or upon a ground expressly provided bylaw. For as long as this
public policy on marriage between Filipinos exists, no divorce
decree dissolving the marriage between them can ever be given separate property and the income from their work or industry, and
legal or judicial recognition and enforcement in this jurisdiction. divide equally, upon the dissolution of the marriage or of the
partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained indiscriminately by
2. The Agreement for Separation and Property Settlement either spouse during the marriage.
was void for lack of court approval
The conjugal partnership of gains subsists until terminated for any
The petitioner insists that the Agreement for Separation and of various causes of termination enumerated in Article 175 of the
Property Settlement (Agreement) that the late Atty. Luna and Civil Code, viz:
Eugenia had entered into and executed in connection with the
divorce proceedings before the CFI of Sto. Domingo in the Article 175. The conjugal partnership of gains terminates:
Dominican Republic to dissolve and liquidate their conjugal
partnership was enforceable against Eugenia. Hence, the CA (1) Upon the death of either spouse;
committed reversible error in decreeing otherwise.
(2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
The insistence of the petitioner was unwarranted.
(3) When the marriage is annulled;
Considering that Atty. Luna and Eugenia had not entered into any
marriage settlement prior to their marriage on September 10, (4) In case of judicial separation of property under Article
1947, the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of 191.
gains governed their property relations. This is because the
Spanish Civil Code, the law then in force at the time of their
marriage, did not specify the property regime of the spouses in The mere execution of the Agreement by Atty. Luna and Eugenia
the event that they had not entered into any marriage settlement did not per sedissolve and liquidate their conjugal partnership of
before or at the time of the marriage. Article 119 of the Civil gains. The approval of the Agreement by a competent court was
Codeclearly so provides, to wit: still required under Article 190 and Article 191 of the Civil Code,
as follows:
Article 119. The future spouses may in the marriage settlements
agree upon absolute or relative community of property, or upon Article 190. In the absence of an express declaration in the
complete separation of property, or upon any other regime. In the marriage settlements, the separation of property between
absence of marriage settlements, or when the same are void, the spouses during the marriage shall not take place save in virtue of
system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains as a judicial order. (1432a)
established in this Code, shall govern the property relations
between husband and wife. Article 191. The husband or the wife may ask for the separation of
property, and it shall be decreed when the spouse of the petitioner
Article 142 of the Civil Codehas defined a conjugal partnership of has been sentenced to a penalty which carries with it civil
gains thusly: interdiction, or has been declared absent, or when legal
separation has been granted.
Article 142. By means of the conjugal partnership of gains the
husband and wife place in a common fund the fruits of their xxxx
The husband and the wife may agree upon the dissolution of the The CA expressly declared that Atty. Luna’s subsequent marriage
conjugal partnership during the marriage, subject to judicial to Soledad on January 12, 1976 was void for being
approval. All the creditors of the husband and of the wife, as well bigamous,22 on the ground that the marriage between Atty. Luna
as of the conjugal partnership shall be notified of any petition for and Eugenia had not been dissolved by the Divorce Decree
judicialapproval or the voluntary dissolution of the conjugal rendered by the CFI of Sto. Domingo in the Dominican Republic
partnership, so that any such creditors may appear atthe hearing but had subsisted until the death of Atty. Luna on July 12, 1997.
to safeguard his interests. Upon approval of the petition for
dissolution of the conjugal partnership, the court shall take such The Court concurs with the CA.
measures as may protect the creditors and other third persons.
In the Philippines, marriages that are bigamous, polygamous, or
After dissolution of the conjugal partnership, the provisions of incestuous are void. Article 71 of the Civil Codeclearly states:
articles 214 and 215 shall apply. The provisions of this Code
concerning the effect of partition stated in articles 498 to 501 shall Article 71. All marriages performed outside the Philippines in
be applicable. (1433a) accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were
performed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this
But was not the approval of the Agreement by the CFI of Sto. country, except bigamous, polygamous, or incestuous marriages
Domingo in the Dominican Republic sufficient in dissolving and as determined by Philippine law.
liquidating the conjugal partnership of gains between the late Atty.
Luna and Eugenia? Bigamy is an illegal marriage committed by contracting a second
or subsequent marriage before the first marriage has been legally
The query is answered in the negative. There is no question that dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared
the approval took place only as an incident ofthe action for divorce presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the
instituted by Atty. Luna and Eugenia, for, indeed, the justifications proper proceedings.23 A bigamous marriage is considered void ab
for their execution of the Agreement were identical to the grounds initio.24
raised in the action for divorce.21 With the divorce not being itself
valid and enforceable under Philippine law for being contrary to Due to the second marriage between Atty. Luna and the petitioner
Philippine public policy and public law, the approval of the being void ab initioby virtue of its being bigamous, the properties
Agreement was not also legally valid and enforceable under acquired during the bigamous marriage were governed by the
Philippine law. Consequently, the conjugal partnership of gains of rules on co-ownership, conformably with Article 144 of the Civil
Atty. Luna and Eugenia subsisted in the lifetime of their marriage. Code, viz:

3. Atty. Luna’s marriage with Soledad, being bigamous, Article 144. When a man and a woman live together as husband
was void; properties acquired during their marriage and wife, but they are not married, ortheir marriage is void from
were governed by the rules on co-ownership the beginning, the property acquired by eitheror both of them
through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be
What law governed the property relations of the second marriage governed by the rules on co-ownership.(n)
between Atty. Luna and Soledad?
In such a situation, whoever alleges co-ownership carried the
burden of proof to confirm such fact.1âwphi1 To establish co-
ownership, therefore, it became imperative for the petitioner to ₱146,825.30;27 and that such aggregate contributions of
offer proof of her actual contributions in the acquisition of ₱306,572.00 corresponded to almost the entire share of Atty.
property. Her mere allegation of co-ownership, without sufficient Luna in the purchase of the condominium unit amounting to
and competent evidence, would warrant no relief in her favor. As ₱362,264.00 of the unit’s purchase price of ₱1,449,056.00. 28 The
the Court explained in Saguid v. Court of Appeals: 25 petitioner further asserts that the lawbooks were paid for solely
out of her personal funds, proof of which Atty. Luna had even sent
In the cases of Agapay v. Palang, and Tumlos v. Fernandez, her a "thank you" note; 29 that she had the financial capacity to
which involved the issue of co-ownership ofproperties acquired by make the contributions and purchases; and that Atty. Luna could
the parties to a bigamous marriage and an adulterous not acquire the properties on his own due to the meagerness of
relationship, respectively, we ruled that proof of actual contribution the income derived from his law practice.
in the acquisition of the property is essential. The claim of co-
ownership of the petitioners therein who were parties to the Did the petitioner discharge her burden of proof on the co-
bigamous and adulterousunion is without basis because they ownership?
failed to substantiate their allegation that they contributed money
in the purchase of the disputed properties. Also in Adriano v. In resolving the question, the CA entirely debunked the
Court of Appeals, we ruled that the fact that the controverted petitioner’s assertions on her actual contributions through the
property was titled in the name of the parties to an adulterous following findings and conclusions, namely:
relationship is not sufficient proof of coownership absent evidence
of actual contribution in the acquisition of the property. SOLEDAD was not able to prove by preponderance of evidence
that her own independent funds were used to buy the law office
As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party condominium and the law books subject matter in contentionin
who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, this case – proof that was required for Article 144 of the New Civil
asserts an affirmative issue. Contentions must be proved by Code and Article 148 of the Family Code to apply – as to cases
competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of where properties were acquired by a man and a woman living
the party’s own evidence and not upon the weakness of the together as husband and wife but not married, or under a
opponent’s defense. This applies with more vigor where, as in the marriage which was void ab initio. Under Article 144 of the New
instant case, the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex Civil Code, the rules on co-ownership would govern. But this was
parte.1âwphi1 The plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the relief not readily applicable to many situations and thus it created a void
prayed for. The law gives the defendantsome measure of at first because it applied only if the parties were not in any way
protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the incapacitated or were without impediment to marry each other (for
complaint. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court it would be absurd to create a co-ownership where there still
isconvinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such exists a prior conjugal partnership or absolute community
relief. Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it between the man and his lawful wife). This void was filled upon
and a mereallegation is not evidence.26 adoption of the Family Code. Article 148 provided that: only the
property acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint
The petitioner asserts herein that she sufficiently proved her contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned in
actual contributions in the purchase of the condominium unit in common and in proportion to their respective contributions. Such
the aggregate amount of at least ₱306,572.00, consisting in direct contributions and corresponding shares were prima
contributions of ₱159,072.00, and in repaying the loans Atty. Luna faciepresumed to be equal. However, for this presumption to
had obtained from Premex Financing and Banco Filipino totaling arise, proof of actual contribution was required. The same rule
and presumption was to apply to joint deposits of money and SOLEDAD’s claim that she made a cash contribution of
evidence of credit. If one of the parties was validly married to ₱100,000.00 is unsubstantiated. Clearly, there is no basis for
another, his or her share in the co-ownership accrued to the SOLEDAD’s claim of co-ownership over the 25/100 portion of the
absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid condominium unit and the trial court correctly found that the same
marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith was not validly was acquired through the sole industry of ATTY. LUNA, thus:
married to another, his or her share shall be forfeited in the
manner provided in the last paragraph of the Article 147. The "The Deed of Absolute Sale, Exhibit "9", covering the
rules on forfeiture applied even if both parties were in bad faith. condominium unit was in the name of Atty. Luna, together with his
Co-ownership was the exception while conjugal partnership of partners in the law firm. The name of the plaintiff does not appear
gains was the strict rule whereby marriage was an inviolable as vendee or as the spouse of Atty. Luna. The same was
social institution and divorce decrees are not recognized in the acquired for the use of the Law firm of Atty. Luna. The loans from
Philippines, as was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Allied Banking Corporation and Far East Bank and Trust
Tenchavez vs. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965, Company were loans of Atty. Luna and his partners and plaintiff
15 SCRA 355, thus: does not have evidence to show that she paid for them fully or
partially. x x x"
xxxx
The fact that CCT No. 4779 and subsequently, CCT No. 21761
As to the 25/100pro-indivisoshare of ATTY. LUNA in the were in the name of "JUAN LUCES LUNA, married to Soledad L.
condominium unit, SOLEDAD failed to prove that she made an Luna" was no proof that SOLEDAD was a co-owner of the
actual contribution to purchase the said property. She failed to condominium unit. Acquisition of title and registration thereof are
establish that the four (4) checks that she presented were indeed two different acts. It is well settled that registration does not confer
used for the acquisition of the share of ATTY. LUNA in the title but merely confirms one already existing. The phrase
condominium unit. This was aptly explained in the Decision of the "married to" preceding "Soledad L. Luna" is merely descriptive of
trial court, viz.: the civil status of ATTY. LUNA.

"x x x The first check, Exhibit "M" for ₱55,000.00 payable to Atty. SOLEDAD, the second wife, was not even a lawyer. So it is but
Teresita Cruz Sison was issued on January 27, 1977, which was logical that SOLEDAD had no participation in the law firm or in the
thirteen (13) months before the Memorandum of Agreement, purchase of books for the law firm. SOLEDAD failed to prove that
Exhibit "7" was signed. Another check issued on April 29, 1978 in she had anything to contribute and that she actually purchased or
the amount of ₱97,588.89, Exhibit "P" was payable to Banco paid for the law office amortization and for the law books. It is
Filipino. According to the plaintiff, thiswas in payment of the loan more logical to presume that it was ATTY. LUNA who bought the
of Atty. Luna. The third check which was for ₱49,236.00 payable law office space and the law books from his earnings from his
to PREMEX was dated May 19, 1979, also for payment of the practice of law rather than embarrassingly beg or ask from
loan of Atty. Luna. The fourth check, Exhibit "M", for ₱4,072.00 SOLEDAD money for use of the law firm that he headed. 30
was dated December 17, 1980. None of the foregoing prove that
the amounts delivered by plaintiff to the payees were for the The Court upholds the foregoing findings and conclusions by the
acquisition of the subject condominium unit. The connection was CA both because they were substantiated by the records and
simply not established. x x x" because we have not been shown any reason to revisit and undo
them. Indeed, the petitioner, as the party claiming the co-
ownership, did not discharge her burden of proof. Her mere
allegations on her contributions, not being evidence, 31 did not
serve the purpose. In contrast, given the subsistence of the first
marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia, the presumption that
Atty. Luna acquired the properties out of his own personal funds
and effort remained. It should then be justly concluded that the
properties in litislegally pertained to their conjugal partnership of
gains as of the time of his death. Consequently, the sole
ownership of the 25/100 pro indivisoshare of Atty. Luna in the
condominium unit, and of the lawbooks pertained to the
respondents as the lawful heirs of Atty. Luna.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on

November 11, 2005; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs
of suit.

SO ORDERED.