The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer in a long-term illicit relationship could claim co-ownership of properties acquired during the cohabitation, based on financial contributions made, even though the properties were registered solely in the other party’s name. This decision recognizes the property rights arising from contributions within unmarried, adulterous relationships, offering a legal avenue to claim assets. It emphasizes proving actual cohabitation and financial contributions to establish co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code.

Love, Labor, and Land: Can an Illicit Affair Establish Property Rights?

This case revolves around Bernard B. Benasa, a seafarer, and Presentacion R. Mahor, who were involved in a long-term relationship spanning from 1974 to 1999. During this period, Mahor was married to another man, Pablo Mahor. Benasa regularly remitted portions of his salary to Mahor, who used these funds to purchase several properties. The properties, however, were registered solely in Mahor’s name. Upon their separation, Benasa sought an accounting, inventory, and reconveyance of these properties, claiming co-ownership based on his financial contributions during their cohabitation.

The central legal question is whether Benasa can claim co-ownership of properties acquired during an adulterous relationship, based on his financial contributions, even when the properties are registered solely in Mahor’s name. This issue brings to the fore the application of Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs property relations in cases of cohabitation where parties are not capacitated to marry each other. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both denied Benasa’s petition, stating that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish co-ownership under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed these decisions, emphasizing the importance of proving actual cohabitation and financial contributions to establish co-ownership. To fully understand the court’s ruling, it is important to examine the legal framework governing property relations in such situations. The case hinges on the applicability of Article 148 of the Family Code, which addresses cohabitation not covered by Article 147. This article stipulates that only properties acquired through the actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned in common, in proportion to their respective contributions.

The court clarified that Article 148 of the Family Code applies to relationships where the parties are not capacitated to marry each other, including adulterous relationships. The historical context is important: under the Old Civil Code, Article 144 applied to relationships where parties were not incapacitated to marry, but not to those involving adultery or concubinage. This created a legal gap, which Article 148 of the Family Code now fills, applying retroactively as long as vested rights remain unimpaired.

The Supreme Court emphasized the term “cohabit,” referring to dwelling together as husband and wife, for some period of time, as distinguished from occasional, transient interviews for unlawful intercourse. The intent of the parties to live together as husband and wife determines cohabitation, and not the time they physically spent together. The court pointed to several pieces of evidence that corroborated Benasa’s claim of cohabitation. These included letters exchanged between Benasa and Mahor, photographs displaying their affection, and the fact that Benasa listed the Fairview Park residence as his address and Mahor’s address in his Authorization of Allotment.

The Supreme Court also gave significant weight to the financial contributions made by Benasa. He was able to present slips and passbooks showing remittances totaling US$585,755.89 and P200,927.00 to Mahor during their 25-year relationship. Mahor was even added as an alternative party in the passbooks, which suggested she had access to these funds for her benefit. In a letter, Mahor acknowledged receiving allotments from Benasa to deposit in a bank account, further substantiating Benasa’s claim that he contributed to the acquisition of the properties. The Court quoted Mahor’s letter:

[A]lso opened our $ account in the same bank, they said they need also your signature so I am the only one named in the book daddy. Will this be okay with you daddy? Kasi saying din yung araw na dadaan without any interest of our $s. One thing more daddy I am afraid to keep cash here at home.

Another important piece of evidence was Mahor’s handwritten note on the back of a photograph of the Quezon City property stating that it was “bought from *my* allotment.” The Supreme Court found that this note referred to the remittances that Mahor received from Benasa. The remittances, which were substantial, demonstrated that Benasa had contributed to the acquisition of the properties. The fact that the properties were registered solely under Mahor’s name was not conclusive proof of ownership, as the claimant can still prove his/her title in the concept of an owner.

While the Supreme Court recognized Benasa’s right to the real properties as a co-owner, it rejected his claim to the personal properties located in the Quezon City property. The court deemed the inventory and photos he presented to be self-serving and inadequate. These only identified the property without establishing that he had purchased them. The Court highlighted that Benasa’s assumption that Mahor was unemployed and could not have afforded the subject properties was patronizing and unsupported by evidence. Additionally, the Supreme Court awarded Benasa moral and exemplary damages amounting to PHP 100,000.00, as well as attorney’s fees of PHP 10,000.00.

Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the RTC for proper accounting, the reception of evidence, and evaluation to determine the ownership and share of the parties in the real properties located in Quezon City, Tagaytay City, and Baliuag, Bulacan. The Supreme Court’s decision establishes a crucial precedent for property rights in cases of unmarried cohabitation, especially those involving illicit relationships. The ruling underscores the significance of proving actual cohabitation and financial contributions to establish co-ownership, even if properties are registered under one party’s name. This decision aims to provide equitable relief to parties who have contributed financially to the acquisition of properties during their cohabitation, regardless of the legal status of their relationship.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a party in an adulterous relationship could claim co-ownership of properties acquired during cohabitation based on financial contributions, even if the properties were registered solely in the other party’s name.
What is Article 148 of the Family Code?	Article 148 of the Family Code governs property relations in cases of cohabitation where the parties are not capacitated to marry each other, stating that only properties acquired through actual joint contribution shall be owned in common.
What constitutes cohabitation under Article 148?	Cohabitation under Article 148 refers to dwelling together as husband and wife, for some period of time, as distinguished from occasional, transient interviews for unlawful intercourse. It is not defined by a fixed time period, but by the intent to live together as spouses.
What evidence did Benasa present to prove cohabitation?	Benasa presented letters exchanged with Mahor, photographs displaying their affection, the Fairview Park residence listed as their address, and the testimony of his brother who visited them regularly.
How did the Supreme Court view the financial contributions made by Benasa?	The Supreme Court viewed Benasa’s remittances totaling US$585,755.89 and P200,927.00 as significant financial contributions, especially given Mahor’s acknowledgment of receiving and depositing these funds.
Why was Benasa’s claim to personal properties rejected?	Benasa’s claim to personal properties was rejected because he failed to provide adequate evidence that he had purchased them, and his assertions were considered self-serving.
What did the Supreme Court order in its ruling?	The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions, recognized Benasa’s right to the real properties as a co-owner, and remanded the case to the RTC for proper accounting and determination of the parties’ shares.
Did the Supreme Court award damages to Benasa?	Yes, the Supreme Court awarded Benasa moral and exemplary damages of PHP 100,000.00 and attorney’s fees of PHP 10,000.00.
What is the significance of this ruling?	The ruling establishes a precedent for recognizing property rights in unmarried cohabitation, even in illicit relationships, based on financial contributions, emphasizing the importance of proving cohabitation and financial input.

This Supreme Court decision serves as a significant reminder of the complexities surrounding property rights in unmarried cohabitation. By recognizing the contributions made in long-term relationships, the court aims to provide a measure of equity and justice. This case underscores the importance of maintaining thorough financial records and seeking legal counsel to navigate the intricacies of property division in non-traditional relationships.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: BERNARD B. BENASA, PETITIONER, VS. PRESENTACION R. MAHOR, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 236659, August 31, 2022