Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 289 views

    Case Digest PFR Subject Spouses Estonina v. Court of Appeals (266 SCRA 627, January 27, 1997)

    Uploaded by

    Grandeur P. G. Guerrero
    This case digest summarizes a case regarding property ownership between spouses. Santiago Garcia owned a lot and had 9 children and a wife, Consuelo, before he died. After his death, his children sold their 1/10 share of the lot to the Atayan spouses. The Estonina spouses were able to obtain a judgment against Consuelo and bought the property at auction. The Atayan spouses claimed they owned 9/10 of the lot. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the lot was Santiago's exclusive property, not conjugal. As such, upon his death his children each inherited a 10% share, making the Estonina spouses' ownership 10% and

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest PFR Subject Spouses Estonina v. Court of Appeals (266 SCRA 627, January 27, 1997)

    Uploaded by

    Grandeur P. G. Guerrero
    289 views2 pages
    This case digest summarizes a case regarding property ownership between spouses. Santiago Garcia owned a lot and had 9 children and a wife, Consuelo, before he died. After his death, his children sold their 1/10 share of the lot to the Atayan spouses. The Estonina spouses were able to obtain a judgment against Consuelo and bought the property at auction. The Atayan spouses claimed they owned 9/10 of the lot. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the lot was Santiago's exclusive property, not conjugal. As such, upon his death his children each inherited a 10% share, making the Estonina spouses' ownership 10% and

    Original Description:

    Case Digest Estonina vs CA 266 SCRA 627

    Original Title

    Case Digest PFR Subject Spouses Estonina v. Court of Appeals [266 SCRA 627, January 27, 1997]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case digest summarizes a case regarding property ownership between spouses. Santiago Garcia owned a lot and had 9 children and a wife, Consuelo, before he died. After his death, his children sold their 1/10 share of the lot to the Atayan spouses. The Estonina spouses were able to obtain a judgment against Consuelo and bought the property at auction. The Atayan spouses claimed they owned 9/10 of the lot. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the lot was Santiago's exclusive property, not conjugal. As such, upon his death his children each inherited a 10% share, making the Estonina spouses' ownership 10% and

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest PFR Subject Spouses Estonina v. Court of Appeals (266 SCRA 627, January 27, 1997)

    Uploaded by

    Grandeur P. G. Guerrero
    This case digest summarizes a case regarding property ownership between spouses. Santiago Garcia owned a lot and had 9 children and a wife, Consuelo, before he died. After his death, his children sold their 1/10 share of the lot to the Atayan spouses. The Estonina spouses were able to obtain a judgment against Consuelo and bought the property at auction. The Atayan spouses claimed they owned 9/10 of the lot. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the lot was Santiago's exclusive property, not conjugal. As such, upon his death his children each inherited a 10% share, making the Estonina spouses' ownership 10% and

    Copyright:

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

    CASE DIGEST ON PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS (PFR) SUBJECT

    1st Year 1st Semester

    Student : Guerrero, Grandeur P.G.


    Freshman, Juris Doctor
    Professor : Hon. Judge Eugene C. Paras

    Case Digest, in re: Arts. 74 to 148 of the Family Code (Property


    relations between husband and wife)

    Title: Spouses Estonina v. Court of Appeals


    [266 SCRA 627, January 27, 1997]

    Petitioner: SPS. TRINIDAD S. ESTONINA and PAULINO


    ESTONINA

    Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS SPS. CELSO ATAYAN and


    NILDA HICBAN and CONSUELO VDA. DE GARCIA,
    REMEDIOS, ELVIRA, OFELIA, VIRGILIO, MARILOU,
    and LOLITA all surnamed GARCIA, and HEIRS OF
    CASTOR GARCIA and of SANTIAGO GARCIA, JR.

    Ponente: Justice Francisco

    Facts:

    A lot was owned by Santiago Garcia, who has 9 children and a wife named
    Consuelo Garcia. Santiago already died when this controversy arose.
    Petitioners, the spouses Estonina, filed a case against Consuelo Garcia and
    was able to obtain an attachment over the land. While the case was
    pending, the 9 children sold their 1/10 share in the lot to Spouses Atayan,
    who are the respondents here. Estonina were able to obtain a favorable
    judgment against Consuelo Garcia. The land was sold at public auction and
    a TCT was issued in the name of Estonina. Atayan however filed a
    complaint for annulment of the sheriff sale and the TCT claiming that they
    own 9/10 of the land. The RTC said that the land was presumed to be
    conjugal hence Consuelo Garcia owned 50% of the land plus 5% as her
    share in the intestate estate of her husband Santiago Garcia. RTC ordered
    the amendment of the TCT to show that Estonina owns 55% while Atayan
    owns 45%. Both parties appealed. The CA modified the judgment. The CA
    held that lot was the exclusive property of Santiago Garcia and not
    conjugal. It held that Estonina only owns 1/10 or 10% and Atayan owns
    9/10 or 90%.
    Issue:

    Is the property exclusive or conjugal? (Exclusive share of the deceased


    Santiago)

    What’s the real share of Estonina and Atayan? (10% and 90%,
    respectively.)

    Ruling:

    SC affirms CA in toto. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to


    the conjugal partnership only when there is proof that the property was
    acquired during the marriage. Otherwise stated, proof of acquisition during
    the marriage is a condition sine qua nonfor the operation of the
    presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership. Here, Estonino failed to
    present any proof that the property was acquired during the marriage.
    Estonino merely relies on the certificate of title which was issued during the
    marriage. The TCT does not suffice to establish the conjugal nature of the
    property. Acquisition of property and registration of title are two different
    acts. Registration does not confer title but merely confirms one already
    existing. Thus, the property is the exclusive property of the deceased
    Santiago and when he died leaving 10 compulsory heirs, each one got 10%
    of the lot. Hence, what the Estonino spouses purchased in the public
    auction was merely the rights of Consuelo Garcia consisting of 10% of the
    lot.

    You might also like