VICTOR JUANIZA, HEIRS OF JOSEFA P. LEUS, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. EUGENIO JOSE, THE ECONOMIC INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., AND ROSALIA ARROYO, DEFENDANTS AND APPEL…

This case was certified by the Court of Appeals to the Court on
the ground that the questions raised in the appeal of the decision of the Court
of First Instance of Laguna are purely questions of law.

Eugenio Jose was the registered owner and operator of the
passenger jeepney involved in an accident of collision with a freight train of
the Philippine National Railways that took place on November 23, 1969 which
resulted in the death to seven (7) and physical injuries to five (5) of its
passengers.  At the time of the accident,
Eugenio Jose was legally married to
Socorro Ramos but had been cohabiting with defendant-appellant, Rosalia Arroyo,
for sixteen (16) years in a relationship akin to that of husband and wife.

In the resulting cases for damages filed in the Court of First
Instance of Laguna, decision was rendered, the dispositive part of which reads
as follows:

“(4)    In
Civil Case No. SP-867 ordering defendants Eugenio Jose and Rosalia
Arroyo jointly and severally to pay plaintiff Victor Juaniza the sum of P1,500.00 plus legal interest from date of complaint until
fully paid and costs of suit;

(5)     In Civil Case No.
SP-872, ordering defendants Eugenio Jose and Rosalia Arroyo jointly and
severally to pay the respective heirs of the deceased Josefa P. Leus, Fausto
Leus Retrita, Nestor del Rosario Añonuevo and Arceli de la Cueva in the sum of
P12,000.00 for the life of each of said deceased, with legal interest from date
of complaint, and costs of suit.” (pp. 47-48, Rollo).

Motion for reconsideration was filed by Rosalia Arroyo praying
that the decision be reconsidered insofar as it condemns her to pay damages
jointly and severally with her co-defendant, but was denied.  The lower court based her liability on the
provision of Article 144 of the Civil Code which reads:

“When a man and woman live together as husband and wife, but
they are not married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the
property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or
their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.”

Rosalia Arroyo then filed her appeal with the Court of Appeals
which, as previously stated, certified the same to Us, the question raised being purely legal
as may be seen from the lone assigned error as follows:

“The lower court erred in holding defendant-appellant Rosalia
Arroyo liable ‘for damages resulting from the death and physical injuries
suffered by the passengers’ of the jeepney registered in the name of Eugenio Jose, on the erroneous theory that Eugenio
Jose and Rosalia Arroyo, having lived together as husband and wife, without the
benefit of marriage, are co-owners of said jeepney.” (p.
2, Appellant’s Brief).

The issues thus to be resolved are as follows:  (1) whether Code or not Article 144 of the
Civil Code is applicable in a case where one of the parties in a common-law
relationship is incapacitated to marry, and (2) whether or not Rosalia who is
not a registered owner of the jeepney can be held jointly and severally liable
for damages with the registered owner of the same.

It has been consistently ruled by this Court that the
co-ownership contemplated in Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the
man and the woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to
contract marriage.  (Camporedondo
vs. Aznar, L-11483, February 14, 1958, 102 Phil. 1055, 1068; Osmeña Rodriguez, 54 OG 5526; Malajacan vs. Rubi, 42
OG 5576).  Since Eugenio Jose is legally married to
Socorro Ramos, there is an impediment for him to contract marriage with Rosalia
Arroyo.  Under the aforecited provision
of the Civil Code, Arroyo cannot be a co-owner of the jeepney.  The jeepney belongs to the conjugal
partnership of Jose and his legal wife. 
There is there­fore no basis for the liability of Arroyo for damages arising
from the death of, and physical injuries suffered by, the passengers of the
jeepney which figured in the collision.

Rosalia Arroyo, who is not the registered owner of the jeepney
can neither be liable for damages caused by its operation.  It is settled in our jurisprudence that only
the registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages
that may arise from consequences incident to its operation, or maybe caused to
any of the passengers therein.  (De
Peralta vs. Mangusang, L-18110, July 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 598; Tamayo vs. Aquino,
L-12634 and L-12720, May 29, 1959; Roque vs. Malibay Transit, L-8561, November
18, 1955; Montoya vs. Ignacio, L-5868, December 29, 1953).

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Rosalia Arroyo is
hereby declared free from any liability for damages and the appealed decision
is hereby modified accordingly.  No
costs.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ.,
concur.