FACTS:
Spouses Fernandez filed an action for ejectment against the
Tumlos. Said spouses alleged that they are the absolute owners of an apartment
building located in Valenzuela, Metro Manila; that they allowed the Tumlos to
occupy the apartment building since 1989, without any payment of any rent. It
was agreed that Guillerma Tumlos would pay P1,600/mo while the other defendants
promised to pay P1,000/mo for the rental, which was not fulfilled by the
Tumlos. When the Fernandez demanded the payment from the Tumlos of P84,000 from
Toto and Gina Tumlos as unpaid rentals for 7 years and P143,600.00 from
Guillerma as unpaid rentals for 7 years, but said demand were unheeded. Then
they prayed that the Tumlos be ordered to vacate the property in question and
to pay the stated unpaid rentals, as well as to jointly pay P30,000 in attorney's
fees.
Guillerma filed an answer to the complaint, claiming that
she is also the co-owner and co-vendee of the apartment in question together
with Mario Fernandez, as evidenced by a Contract to Sell. MTC promulgated its decision in January 1997.
Upon appeal to the RTC Guillerma et al alleged that Mario
Fernandez and Guillerma had an amorous relationship, and that they bought the
property as their love nest; that they lived together in the property with
their 2 children and that Guillerma administered the property by collecting
rentals, until she discovered that Mario deceived her as to the annulment of
his marriage.
RTC affirmed with the judgment of the MTC. CA reversed the
RTC Decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not that petitioner is the co-owner of the
apartment.
RULING:
No. SC rejected the claim that Guillerma and Mario were the
co-owners of the disputed property.
Under Article 148, proof of actual contribution must be
presented to be deemed as co-owner of the property acquired during the
cohabitation. In this case, Guillerma failed to present any evidence that she
had made an actual contribution to purchase the apartment building. She merely
anchors her claim of co-ownership on her cohabitation with Mario Fernandez. No other evidence was presented to
validate such claim, except for the said affidavit/position paper. Her
claim of having administered the property during their cohabitation is unsubstantiated,
for there is nothing in the Article 148 of the FC provides that the administration
of the property amounts to the contribution in its acquisition.
