8/2/2019 Tumlos v Spouses Fernandez

1/1

Property relations between husband and wife

Article 148 Family Code

Tumlos v spouses Fernandez

petition for review on certiorari

FACTS

CA reversed the RTC decision that affirmed the MTC decision in favor of Guillerma Tumlos, whichordered the dismissal of the petition.

The case is about the ejectment order of Guillerma, Toto and Gina Tumlos from the apartment buildingin Valenzuela of the spouses Fernandez (Mario and Lourdes). The spouses, on the other hand, say that

they are the absolute owners of the property. They said that the Tumloses have been living in their

apartment for the last seven years but that they had agreed that the Tumloses will have to pay their rental

after such time, but they failed to do so.

Guillerma, on the other hand, say that the ejectment suit cannot stand because she is actually co-ownerof the property, because she is a co-vendee together with Mario Fernandez. They bought the property

as their love nest and had two kids. She was deceived by him when she found out that his prior marriage

had not been annulled like he said it was. She also said that Toto and Gina were only transient dwellers

in the property and are not tenants of the spouses Fernandez.

Guillerma also said that the contract to sell submitted by the spouses as proof of their ownership wasfalsified to reflect that Lourdes was the co-vendee with Mario, after she discovered their subsisting

marriage and Mario asked for the contract to be changed to what it is now.

CA RULING

Mario is not legally capacitated to marry Guillerma, so the rules on co-ownership must fail. Also,Guillerma failed to show that she made any actual joint contribution to the property to prove that she has

a claim in it.

ISSUES

Preliminary matters-Guillerma says that CA is biased in favor of respondents, but then procedural errors cannot now be

raised because they were not raised earlier. Also, the CA has already rendered its judgment.-MTC has jurisdiction over the case because the issue of co-ownership may be passed upon by the

MTC to settle issue on possession.

Petitioner is not co-owner-procedural rules have been complied with, because CA was right in saying that issues not raised during

trial cannot be raised for the first time during appeal

-she is not co-owner under Art 144 of the Civil Code, which applies only to a relationship between a man

and a woman not legally capacitated to marry one another. It would be absurd to create a co-ownership when

there exists a prior CPG or absolute community between a man and his legal wife.

-no actual joint contribution, and the claim of administration over the property during cohabitation has

not been proven.

Support and ejectment-petitioner says that Mario failed to refute the filiation of his alleged sons and in effect admits that he isthe father, thus making him liable to support them, including providing for shelter. She says that their right to

support prevails over the ejectment suit.-SC says that the ejectment suit deals exclusively with the issue of possession of the property and

nothing else. Filiation is irrelevant.

RULING

Petition denied.