Facts
In 2005, Josef and Evalyn G. Ursua (Ursua) cohabited as a couple in an apartment. In 2006, they purchased a house and lot located at 183 Don Damaso Street, Don Antonio Heights, Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-289262. The parties allegedly agreed to register the property solely in the name of Ursua to facilitate bank transactions.
Subsequently, the parties separated. They allegedly agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. On June 18, 2007, Ursua executed an Acknowledgement of Third-Party Interest in Real Property (Acknowledgement), purportedly recognizing Josef’s co-ownership over the subject property.
Later, however, Ursua refused to sell the property and denied Josef’s alleged co-ownership, declining to deliver her supposed share. Consequently, Josef executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim.
Thereafter, Josef filed a Complaint for Partition of Real Estate with Damages against Ursua. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) subsequently rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for partition and damages.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Josef should be declared as owner of 50% of the subject property, hence, entitled to its partition
2. Whether or not Art 148 of the Family Code applies to same sex couples
Ruling
1. Yes. Co-ownership is a form of mutual ownership that may arise by law, agreement, succession, fortuitous event, or occupancy, and is governed by the Civil Code and, in certain instances, the Family Code.
In this case, the sole evidence presented by petitioner to establish co-ownership is the Acknowledgement executed and signed by respondent. A close reading of the Acknowledgement reveals two possible interpretations: first, that petitioner’s actual interest in the property is subject to determination based on records and documents; and second, that petitioner’s interest is presumed to be 50%, subject only to adjustment if records prove a higher share.
Since respondent authored the Acknowledgement, any ambiguity therein must be construed against her. Accordingly, the proper interpretation is that the petitioner is entitled to a 50% share in the subject property. The Acknowledgement expressly states that petitioner financed and paid about 50% of the expenses for the acquisition, construction, and improvement of the property.
2. Yes. It must likewise be recalled that petitioner and respondent cohabited without the benefit of marriage. Since they are of the same sex and therefore not legally capacitated to marry each other, their property relations are governed by Article 148 of the Family Code.
Under Article 148, properties acquired during cohabitation may be considered common property if they were acquired during the union and through the parties’ actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry. While shares are presumed equal, such presumption arises only upon proof of actual contribution. Absent such proof, no co-ownership exists.
Here, the Acknowledgement signed by the respondent constitutes proof of the petitioner’s actual contribution. Respondent expressly recognized petitioner’s entitlement to 50% of the property. Applying the doctrine of estoppel—grounded on public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice—respondent is now precluded from denying petitioner’s contribution.
Thus, by virtue of Article 148 of the Family Code and the Acknowledgement executed by respondent, petitioner is a co-owner to the extent of a 50% share of the subject property. As a co-owner, petitioner has the right to demand partition at any time insofar as her share is concerned. Having a lawful interest in the property, she is entitled to seek its division.