CLARA TORELA AND SILVERIANA TORELA, APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS, VS. FELIMON TORELA, MARCIANA GEPANAGO AND MARCOS MAHILUM AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, APPELLEES-RESPONDENTS.

Petitioners, whose complaint was dismissed both in the Court of
First Instance of Negros Occidental and in the Court
of Appeals, would have us reverse the decision of the latter and declare the land in litigation as the conjugal property of
their parents so that they will be entitled to their mother’s share who had died.

The decision of the Court of Appeals which was penned by Mr.
Justice Hermogenes Concepcion,
Jr., now a distinguished member of this Court, is reproduced hereunder in its
material aspects for the factual background of the case and to enable us to
identify the legal problem.

“It appears that on December
31, 1929, Decree No. 440157 was issued by the Court of First
Instance of Occidental Negros in favor of Felimon Torela, married to Graciana Gallego, decreeing that
he is the owner of a certain parcel of land (Lot No. 3770 of the Cad. Survey of
Cauayan) described therein, and ordering that the
same be registered in the name of said Felimon Torela in accordance with the provision of Land Registration
Act (Exh. 3 also Exh.
4).  Consequently, Original Certificate
of Title No. 29257 covering said Lot No. 3770 of the Cauayan
Cadastre was issued in favor of Felimon Torela.  As the
certificate of title (O.C.T. No. 29257) was either lost or destroyed during the
last world war, Felimon Torela
filed a verified petition for reconstitution, dated December 28, 1953, praying
that after due publication thereof in the Official Gazette, as provided for by
law, an order be issued setting the petition for hearing (Exh.
A).  Thereafter
an order was issued on July 8, 1957,
the dispositive portion of which is as follows –

‘WHEREFORE, the Court, pursuant to section 13 of Republic Act No.
26, hereby orders the Register of Deeds of this province to reconstitute the
original as well as the owner’s duplicate of
Original Certificate of Title No. 29257, covering Lot No. 3770 of Cauayan Cadastre, this province, on the basis of the
above-mentioned Decree No. 440157 (Exh. D) for the said lot.  All
liens and incumbrances affecting the above state lot
which appeared noted on the certificate of title sought to be reconstituted at
the time of its loss or destruction, shall be annotated on the
reconstituted certificate of title.  Once
the reconstitution herein ordered is duly accomplished, let a second owner’s
duplicate certificate be issued to the petitioner.’

Thus, Original
Certificate of Title No. RO-6898 (29257) was issued in favor of Felimon Torela, in lieu of the
lost and/or destroyed one (Exh. D,
p. 125, Rec.).

On March 5, 1958, Felimon Torela, filed a ‘Motion Ex-Parte‘
alleging that Lot No. 3770 of the Cauayan Cadastre
having been acquired by him by way of inheritance prior to his marriage to his
first wife, Graciana Gallego,
the Cadastral court ordered that said land be registered in the name of Felimon Torela, married to Graciana Gallego; that his first
wife died many years ago; and that he is married by second nuptial to Marciana Gepanago.  He, therefore, prayed that the court order
the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental to change
his (movant’s) civil status, appearing on the face of
the original certificate of title, ‘from Felimon Torela, married to Graciana Gallego to Felimon Torela, married to Marciana Gepanago‘ (Exh. E).  Acting upon the
Motion Ex-Parte, the court, finding no opposition
thereto and with the conformity of Clara Torela,
daughter of Felimon Torela
by first marriage, granted the motion and ordered the Register of Deeds to change the civil status of the movant from ‘Felimon Torela, married to Graciana Gallego‘ to ‘Felimon Torela, married to Marciana Gepanago‘, which is the actual civil status of the movant, upon payment of the required fees.  (Order of March 10, 1958, Exh. F.)

On March 4, 1958,
Felimon Torela executed a
definite deed of sale (Exh. 1), whereby, for and in
consideration of P3,000.00, he sold Lot No. 3770 of
the Cadastral Survey of Cauayan to Marcos P. Mahilum and Maria Luna Mahilum.  He also stated in the deed of sale that he
was a widower by first marriage
to Graciana Gallego, and
now married to Marciana Gepanago;
that he is the registered owner of said Lot No. 3770, having acquired it by
inheritance from his parents before his marriage to Graciana
Gallego, deceased. 
The document (Exh. 1) was acknowledged before
Notary Public Jose T. Tabuga.  Upon registration of Exhibit 1, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-23078 was issued to said
spouses (Exh. 2).

According, however, to the plaintiffs while in their youth they had
seen their father Felimon and their mother Graciana Gallego clean the lot in
question, as it was then forested.  And
when their mother died, their father married Marciana
Gepanago.  In
other words, the plaintiffs want us to believe that the parcel of land is a
conjugal property of their father and mother (Felimon
and Graciana). 
And since their father succeeded in changing his status and in conveying
the land to another, they now assert their right to the estate appertaining to
their mother, alleging that they were deprived of their corresponding share
from the property thus sold.

Under the conflicting claims of the plaintiffs and their father,
defendant Felimon Torela,
the decisive question is whether or not the parcel of land herein involved is a
conjugal property of the spouses Felimon Torela and Graciana Gallego (plaintiffs’ mother).

Felimon Torela
declared that he and his first wife Graciana were
married in 1915 (t.s.n., p. 18).  And the land in question was decreed in the
name of Felimon Torela,
married to Graciana Gallego
(Exh. B, which is also Exh. 4).  According to Article 1401 of the Old
Civil Code, the following properties belong to the conjugal partnership:

1.                 
Property acquired for a valuable
consideration during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether
the acquisition is made for the partnership or for one of the spouses only;

2.                 
Property obtained by the industry, wages or work of the spouses or of
either of them;

3.                 
The fruits, income, or interest
collected or accrued during the marriage, derived from the partnership
property, or from that which belongs separately to either of the spouses.

Felimon Torela
testified that he inherited the contested property from his parents.  Pedro Torela
and Soperiana Magbanua.  True enough that plaintiff Silveriana Torela and Miguel Pedrosa declared that the land in question was jointly cleared
by Felimon Torela and his
first wife Graciana Gallego,
but the trial court did not give credence to their testimonies for the simple
reason that Silveriana was not yet born at the time
when said Felimon, together with his father, started
living in the land in 1905 (t.s.n., p. 18); while
Miguel Pedrosa was only one year old then,
considering that he was 55 years of age when he testified on February 10,
1959.  It is thus plainly obvious that Silveriana and Miguel could not have known when defendant Felimon and his father moved to the land in 1905.  Considering that Felimon
was 81 years old when he testified on February 10, 1959, he was already 27
years in 1905, in which case he must have already helped his father in cleaning
and tilling that land.  As a matter of
fact at the time of his marriage with his first wife, Graciana
Gallego, a portion of said land had already been
cultivated by him.  Asked what was the condition of the land in 1915 (the date of his first
marriage), he answered:  ‘Only a portion of
the lot was plowed by me.’ (t.s.n.,
p. 18.)

In the light of the foregoing, the property in question is not one
of those enumerated in Article 1401 of the Old Civil Code.  On the other hand, as it was inherited by Felimon from his parents and brought to the marriage with
his first wife, the same is deemed his separate property (Art. 1396, Old Civil
Code).  For these reasons, defendant Felimon Torela had lawfully
disposed of his property to the exclusion of his children by his first
marriage.  Accordingly, plaintiffs’
complaint was correctly dismissed by the court below.”

Petitioners allege that the Court of Appeals failed to take into
account Article 1407 of the Spanish Civil Code, which now corresponds to
Article 160 of the New Civil Code, and which reads as follows:

“Art. 1407. 
All property of the spouses shall be deemed partnership property
in the absence of proof that it belongs exclusively to the husband or to the
wife.”

Petitioners claim that since the lot in question was registered
in the name of Felimon Torela,
married to Graciana Gallego,
it must be presumed to be the conjugal property of Felimon
and Graciana so that one-half thereof should be
adjudicated to them as their inheritance from their mother.

While it is true that all property of the marriage is presumed to
be conjugal, as above stated, nonetheless the party who invokes the presumption
must first prove that the property was acquired during the marriage.  This proof is a condition sine qua
non for the application of the presumption.  (Cobb-Perez vs. Lantin, L-22320, May 22, 1968, 23 SCRA 637; Ponce de Leon
vs. RFC, L-24571, Dec. 18, 1970; 36 SCRA 289.)

In the instant case there is nothing in the record to show that
the lot in question was acquired during the marriage of Felimon
Torela and Graciana Gallego.  On the
contrary, the factual finding of the Court of Appeals is to the effect that Felimon acquired the land through inheritance and this
conclusion is bolstered by that fact that one of the petitioners herein, Clara Torela, gave her conformity to her father’s Ex-Parte Motion of March 5, 1958, wherein it was recited, inter
alia, that Felimon Torela had acquired the property by way of inheritance
prior to his marriage to his first wife, Graciana Gallego.

The circumstance that Decree No. 440157 of the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental which confirmed the
ownership of Felimon Torela
over the land in question described him as married to Graciana
Gallego was merely descriptive of his civil status at
that time and cannot be taken as proof that the land was acquired during their coverture.  The
further circumstance that the land was registered during their marriage cannot
in itself constitute proof that it was acquired during their marriage for land
registration under Act No. 496, as amended, does not confer title; it merely
confirms a title already existing and which is registerable.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of
the Court of Appeals, the same is hereby affirmed without any special pronouncement
as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Barredo, (Chairman), J., concurs. Putting it otherwise, what appears in Torrens title is a presumption that can be rebutted by contrary proof which exerts
in this case.

Aquino, J., concurs. If the land in question was conjugal property of the spouses Graciana Gallego and Felimon Torela, who were married
in 1915, it should have been indicated in the Original Certificate of Title No.
2957, issued to Felimon Torela,
as well as in the decree of registration issued in 1929, that it was the said
spouses conjugal property and it should have been registered in their names.
The fact that it was registered during the marriage in the husband’s name alone
was an indication that it was the husband’s separate property (Stuart vs. Yatco, 114 Phil. 1083).