This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The only issue proper for resolution is the question of whether the subject properties are conjugal. Petitioners claim that the subject properties[16] are exclusive properties of Nicolas except for Lot No. 152, which they claim is Pacita's exclusive property. This issue is easily resolved. The Family Code provisions on conjugal partnerships govern the property relations between Nicolas and Eusebia even if they were married before the effectivity of Family Code.[17] Article 105[18] of the Family Code explicitly mandates that the Family Code shall apply to conjugal partnerships established before the Family Code without prejudice to vested rights already acquired under the Civil Code or other laws. Thus, under the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during the marriage, the presumption is that they are conjugal.[19] The burden of proof is on the party claiming that they are not conjugal.[20] This is counter-balanced by the requirement that the properties must first be proven to have been acquired during the marriage before they are presumed conjugal.[21] Petitioners argue that Eusebia failed to prove this pre-requisite. We disagree. | |||||