This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In order to rebut the presumptive conjugal nature of the property, the petitioner must present strong, clear and convincing evidence of exclusive ownership of one of the spouses.[11] The burden of proving that the property belongs exclusively to the wife or to the husband rests upon the party asserting it. | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not unaware that all property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal, unless it is shown that it is owned exclusively by the husband or the wife;[51] that this presumption is not overcome by the fact that the property is registered in the name of the husband or the wife alone;[52] and that the consent of both spouses is required before a conjugal property may be mortgaged.[53] However, we find it iniquitous to apply the foregoing presumption especially since the nature of the mortgaged property was never raised as an issue before the RTC, the CA, and even before this Court. In fact, petitioner never alleged in his Complaint that the said property was conjugal in nature. Hence, respondent had no opportunity to rebut the said presumption. | |||||