IN RE: CONSOLIDATED PETITION FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, RECOVERY OF OWNERSHIP AND QUIETING OF TITLE
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:
dated 21 March 2011, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Capas, Tarlac (“RTC”) which dismissed the suit seeking to cancel a deed of sale, and to recover ownership over real property.
This is the appeal from the Decision[1] dated 3 December 2010 (“assailed Decision”) and the Order[2]
The facts are as follows: On 14 April 2003, Primitiva Santos Vda. De Layug (“appellant Primitiva Layug”) and the heirs of the late Celestino Layug represented by appellant Rommel S. Layug (“appellants Layug”) filed the verified Petition[3] before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case Number 618-C-03, against Jose Yumul y Layug (“appellee Jose Yumul”), for cancellation of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969[4] (“Deed of Absolute Sale”), recovery of ownership, and quieting of title.
The Petition alleged: the Spouses Celestino Layug and Primitiva Santos-Layug (“spouses Layug”) were the registered owners of the parcel of agricultural land in Concepcion, Tarlac, containing an area of 16,718 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 57921 (“TCT No. 57921”),[5] issued by the Registrar of Land Titles and Deeds of Tarlac on 24 March 1965 (“subject property”); in 1967, the late Celestino Layug obtained a loan of P4,000.00 from his first cousin, the late Aniceto L. Yumul (“Aniceto Yumul”), and as security for the loan Celestino Layug verbally mortgaged the subject property to Aniceto Yumul, and as customary during those days, Celestino Layug gave TCT No. 57921 to Aniceto Yumul, with the agreement that Celestino Layug, and his family would retain possession of the subject property, and deliver the entire annual harvest of the subject property to Aniceto Yumul as interest payments of the loan, until Celestino Layug would have paid the principal obligation of P4,000.00; unknown to appellants Layug, Aniceto Yumul executed the falsified Deed of Absolute Sale,[6] bearing the forged signature of Celestino Layug (signature of appellant Primitiva Layug did not appear), and indicating that Celestino Layug had sold the subject property to Aniceto Yumul; on the basis of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 85340 (“TCT No. 85340”)[7] was issued in the name of Aniceto Yumul on 28 October 1969; on 5 November 1984, Aniceto Yumul sold the subject property to his brother, appellee Jose Yumul; appellee Jose Yumul then registered the subject property in his name, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 183542[8] (“TCT No. 183542”) was issued; Aniceto Yumul sold the subject property to appellee Jose Yumul to hide the fraudulent Deed of Absolute Sale, and to make it difficult for the appellants Layug to recover the subject property; appellee Jose Yumul registered the subject property in his name despite his knowledge of the defects in the title of Aniceto Yumul; since the fraudulent Deed of Absolute Sale did not contain the genuine signatures of the spouses Layug, the Deed of Absolute Sale was void, and hence, there was no valid transfer of the subject property from the spouses Layug, to Aniceto Yumul, and consequently, from Aniceto Yumul to appellee Jose Yumul; appellee Jose Yumul sent Ben Garcia (the actual possessor of the subject property) the letter dated 19 April 2002,[9] and made a demand that Garcia “return” the subject property to him (appellee Jose Yumul), or if Garcia was interested to continue to till the subject property, they were to enter into a written agreement with specific provisions (i.e., Garcia was to pay Jose Yumul 2 sacks of palay per year; Garcia was to pay appellee Jose Yumul for the 3 years that no payment of palay were made [i.e., 2 sacks per year]); in 2002, the appellants Layug learned of the fraudulent Deed of Absolute Sale, and the subsequent transfer of the subject property to appellee Jose Yumul; prior recourse to the barangay court was futile, thus the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa issued the Certification to File Action dated 16 October 2002;[10] appellee Jose Yumul was a transferree in bad faith, who deprived the appellants Layug of the ownership of the subject property.
The Petition prayed that the RTC: declare the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969 as void, and order its cancellation; order the reconveyance of the subject property to the appellants Layug upon the payment of P4,000.00, plus interest; and order defendant-appellee to pay appellants Layug damages.
Appellee Yumul filed verified Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim.[11] The Answer with Compulsory Couneterclaim alleged: the Petition should be dismissed because appellant Rommel Layug had no legal capacity to sue, because appellants Ricardo and Ramon Layug could not have appointed appellant Rommel Layugto represent them, because appellants Ricardo and Rommel Layug died before the case was filed, and appellant Primitiva Layug could not have appointed appellant Rommel Layug as her attorney-in-fact, because she was very old, weak, and confined to her bed even before the case was filed (i.e., she was incompetent to give her consent except through a guardian appointed by the court); appellants Layug failed to attach the special power of attorney which authorized appellant Rommel Layug to file and represent appellants in the case; Celestino Layug could validly sell the subject property because it was his separate property, and hence, the consent and signature of his wife on the Deed of Absolute Sale was not necessary; the Petition should also be dismissed because the action of appellants Layug was prescribed because the New Civil Code provides that real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years (since the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in 1969, and the TCT No. 85340 in the name of Aniceto Yumul was issued in 1969, the filing of the action by the appellants Layug on 14 April 2003 was out of time); the Petition should be dismissed because it states no cause of action (i.e., what was sought to be annulled was the Deed of Absolute Sale, a document which appellee Yumul was not a party to; appellee Yumul acquired the subject property by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 28 December 1974, and not through the Deed of Absolute Sale sought to be annulled; the TCT No. 57921 was registered in the name of Celestino Layug only, hence, Celestino Layug could validly dispose of his property; appellants Layug did not allege that appellee Yumul was a party to the falsification of the signature); appellee Yumul was a buyer in good faith when he bought the subject property from Aniceto Yumul; defendant-appellee Yumul examined the title in the name of Aniceto Yumul, and looked at the subject property, and found no circumstances which would have put him into inquiry; appellee Yumul paid the realty taxes over the subject property since his purchase in 1974; even assuming that appellee Yumul was a buyer in bad faith, appellee Yumul has acquired the subject property through extraordinary prescription, because his predecessor-in-interest’s possession, added to his open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject property since 1974, amounted to a total of thirty (30) years, as required by law; appellants Layug’s claim was defeated on the ground of laches because the appellants Layug have neglected for an unreasonable length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier (i.e., appellants Layug filed the petition to cancel the Deed of Absolute Sale only in 2003 or more than thirty (30) years); the Petition should be dismissed because the signature of appellants Ramon and Ricardo Layug do not appear in the Verification, and appellants Layug’s counsel did not indicate his Attorney’s roll number.
Appellee Jose Yumul, as compulsory counterclaim, prayed for the award of damages.
The RTC conducted pre-trial.
Thereafter, the RTC proceeded with the trial of the case.
The following persons testified for the appellants Layug: appellant Rommel Layug; Myrna Garcia (wife of the late Ben Garcia, the possessors of the subject property). The evidence for appellants Layug is summarized thus: the late Celestino Layug and appellant Pimitiva Layug were the registered owners of the subject property covered by TCT No. 57921;[12] in 1967, Celestino Layug verbally mortgaged the subject property to his first cousin, the late Aniceto Yumul, to secure the loan of P4,000.00;[13] Celestino Layug and Aniceto Yumul agreed that the harvest of the subject property would be given to Aniceto Yumul only while the loan remained unpaid;[14] unknown to appellants Layug, Aniceto Yumul fraudulently prepared the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969,[15] (i.e., Celestino Layug sold the subject property to Aniceto Yumul for P4,360.00; the signature above the name “CELESTINO LAYUG”[16] on the Deed of Absolute Sale was not the signature of the late Celestino Layug,[17] based on a visual comparison of Celestino Layug’s signature on his Certificate of Tax Certificate (“CTC”) dated 9 January 1978,[18] CTC dated 7 April 1980,[19] Social Security System Membership Identification Card,[20] and the Voter’s Affidavit dated 6 December 1986[21]); appellant Pimitiva Layug’s signature does not appear on the Deed of Absolute Sale, as required by law,[22] and then Aniceto Yumul fraudulently registered the Deed of Absolute Sale, and obtained TCT No. 85340[23] in his name;[24] on 5 November 1984, Aniceto Yumul sold the subject property to his brother, appellee Jose Yumul; appellee Jose Yumul then registered the subject property in his name, and TCT No. 183542[25] was issued; in the letter dated 19 April 2002, appellee Jose Yumul made a demand upon Mrs. Ben Garcia to vacate the subject property, allegedly because he (appellee Jose Yumul) owned the subject property;[26] prior to Ben Garcia, the possessor of the subject property was Ben Garcia’s father, Ernesto Garcia; Ernesto Garcia paid the rentals to Celestino Layug;[27] when Celestino Layug mortgaged the subject property to Aniceto Yumul, Ernesto Garcia paid the rentals to Hernando Tiamzon, the representative of Aniceto Yumul;[28] when Ernesto Garcia died in 1988, Ben Garcia and his wife Myrna Garcia (“spouses Garcia”) took possession of the subject property, and gave the rentals to the father of Aniceto Yumul, Belino Yumul;[29] in 1999, appellee Jose Yumul ordered the spouses Garcia to stop paying the rental fee, because he (appellee Jose Yumul) had a program for them (the spouses Garcia) to acquire the subject property;[30] however, in 2002, appellee Jose Yumul made a demand upon Mrs. Ben Garcia to vacate the subject property because he owned the subject property;[31] from that time on, Mrs. Myrna Garcia paid the rentals of the subject property to appellee Rommel Layug;[32] a couple of years before Aniceto Yumul died, the daughters of Celestino Layug tried to redeem the subject property,[33] but they were not successful;[34] appellants Layug did not pay the realty taxes of the subject property when Aniceto Yumul was in possession of the subject property;[35] appellants Layug were surprised when appellee Jose Yumul informed them (appellants Layug) that he owned the subject property,[36] because Celestino Layug only mortgaged the subject property to Aniceto Yumul; appellants Layug decided to file the Petition against defendant-appellee Yumul after the parties failed to settle amicably, as evidenced by the Certificate to File Action dated 16 October 2002;[37] appellant Primitiva Layug, the heirs of the late Ricardo Layug, and the heirs of Ramon Layug, authorized appellant Rommel Layug to represent them, and to file the Petition against appellee Jose Yumul, as evidenced by the Special Power of Attorney dated 15 September 2002;[38] the appellants Layug and appellee Jose Yumul used to have a close family relationship,[39] but because of this case, the families now have a strained relationship.[40]
Only appellee Jose Yumul testified for himself. The evidence of appellee Jose Yumul is summarized thus: appellee Jose Yumul’s only transaction was with Aniceto Yumul,[41] hence, there is no basis for appellants Layug to sue appellee Jose Yumul; appellee Jose Yumul owns the subject property as evidenced by TCT No. 183542 in his name; appellee Jose Yumul validly bought the subject property from Aniceto Yumul, as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 28 December 1974;[42] before appellee Jose Yumul bought the subject property, Aniceto Yumul showed appellee Jose Yumul the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969, evidencing the sale between Celestino Layug and Aniceto Yumul of the subject property,[43] and the signature above the name “Celestino Layug” on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969, was the genuine signature of Celestino Layug;[44] when appellee Jose Yumul bought the subject property, the agreement of Celestino Layug with Ernesto Garcia, and later with his son Ben Garcia, and then later with Mrs. Ben Garcia, were maintained;[45] Ernesto Garcia and Ben Garcia paid rentals to appellee Jose Yumul,[46] but when Myrna Garcia took over the possession of the subject property, she did not pay the rentals to appellee Jose Yumul;[47] appellee Jose Yumul sent Myrna Garcia a letter and made a demand upon her to pay the rental fees, but Myrna Garcia failed to pay the rentals,[48] and this led appellee Jose Yumul to file the case against Myrna Garcia before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (“DARAB”), docketed as DARAB Case No. III-T-2333-03;[49] in the Decision dated 20 November 2007, the DARAB ruled in favor of appellee Jose Yumul, and ordered Myrna Garcia to vacate the subject property;[50] in the span of almost thirty years that appellee Jose Yumul has owned the subject property, appellee Primitiva Layug did not assert her claim over the subject property;[51] it was only on 14 April 2003 that appellants Layug asserted their claim over the subject property;[52] appellee Jose Yumul pays for the realty taxes of the subject property in his name (as evidenced by Official Receipt of the Republic of the Philippines No. 6463911 dated 31 October 1984,[53] Official Receipt of the Republic of the Philippines No. 6463874 dated 31 October 1984,[54] Official Receipt of the Republic of the Philippines No. 9879730 dated 17 November 2008,[55] and Tax Clearance dated 3 December 2008, issued by the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Tarlac);[56] appellee Jose Yumul suffered humiliation due to the case filed by appellants Layug, thus appellants Layug should pay appellee Jose Yumul damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00,[57] and attorney’s fees in the amount of P100,000.00.[58]
On 3 December 2010, the RTC issued the assailed Decision.[59] The dispositive portion read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finding validity on the Deed of Absolute Sale between Celestino Layug and Aniceto Yumul, the issuance of the title corresponding thereto, the Deed of Absolute Sale between Aniceto Yumul and Jose Yumul; and the certicificate of land transfer issued to Jose Yumul, the complaint is hereby dismissed. The counter-claim is also dismissed.
Parties shall shoulder their own costs.
SO ORDERED.
In the Order dated 21 March 2011,[60] the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration of appellants Layug.
Thus, this appeal, appellants Layug making the following assignment of errors:
1. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT AN ALIENATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY OF THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF THE HUSBAND WITHOUT HIS WIFE’S CONSENT, ABSENT A DECLARATION THAT SHE IS A NON COMPOS MENTIS, OR A SPENDTHRIFT OR IS UNDER CIVIL INTERDICTION, IS NOT ALLOWED BY LAW.
2. THE LOWER COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING AND FINDING THAT THE DEED OF SALE WAS NULL AND VOID.
3. THE LOWER COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT SINCE THE FIRST DEED OF SALE WAS AGAINST THE LAW AND THEREFORE INVALID, THE SECOND DEED OR SALE TRANSFERRED NO RIGHT OR PROPERTY TO THE BUYER.
4. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DEED OF SALE BETWEEN CELESTINO LAYUG AND ANICETO YUMUL WAS A FORGERY.
5. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.
The issues are: 1) whether the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969 is void because a) Celestino Layug sold the subject property without the consent of his wife, appellant Primitiva Layug, and b) Celestino Layug’s signature thereon was forged; and 2) whether appellee Jose Yumul validly acquired the subject property from Aniceto Yumul.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANTS[61]
As to the first issue, the appellants Layug answer in the affirmative. The Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969 is void because Celestino Layug sold the subject property without the consent of his wife, appellant Primitiva Layug, and also because Celestino Layug’s signature thereon was forged.
The Brief for the Appellants[62] thrusts: a husband cannot validly alienate a real property of the conjugal partnership without the consent or conformity of the wife, as provided by Articles 166 and 207 of the New Civil Code, and Article 124 of the Family Code; jurisprudence provides that a sale executed without the consent of the wife is voidable; the absence of the consent and signature of appellee Primitiva Layug to the sale of the subject property is an admitted fact, hence, Celestino Layug could not validly sell the subject property without the consent of his wife, appellant Primitiva Layug; since plaintiff-appellant Primitiva Layug did not consent to the sale of the subject property, the Deed of Absolute Sale is void, and no property was transferred from Celestino Layug to Aniceto Yumul; Aniceto Yumul was not a buyer in good faith because he knew that there was a defect in the title of Celestino Layug at the time he bought the subject property; the Deed of Absolute of Sale was also void because it contained a forged signature of Celestino Layug.
Regarding the second issue, the appellants Layug answer in the negative. Appellee Jose Yumul did not validly acquire the subject property from Aniceto Yumul.
The Brief for the Appellants[63] thrusts: since the Deed of Absolute Sale is void, Aniceto Yumul did not acquire the subject property from Celestino Layug; Aniceto Yumul could not have sold something he did not own; hence, appellee Jose Yumul did not acquire the subject property.
Appellee Jose Yumul did not file appellee’s brief.[64]
THE COURT’S RULING
As to the first issue, the Court rules in the negative. The Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969 validly transferred ownership over the subject property to Aniceto Yumul. While appellant Primitiva Layug could have moved to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale on the ground that she did not give her consent to the sale, she did not. Moreover, the averment that Celestino Layug’s signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale, was not proved. Hence, the Deed of Absolute Sale validly transferred ownership over the subject property to Aniceto Yumul.
Celestino Layug could not have validly sold the subject property to Aniceto Yumul without his wife appellant Primitiva Layug’s consent. This is so because subject property was conjugal property.
Under Article 160 of the New Civil Code, all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Thus, there is a legal presumption that all property in a marriage is conjugal. However, the legal presumption can be rebutted, if there is proof that such property is exclusive property of one of the spouses. In this case, the legal presumption was not rebutted, because no evidence was adduced on this matter.
It is a basic rule in evidence that he who alleges the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proof. The plaintiff must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant’s.[65] In this case, appellee Jose Yumul failed to rebut the legal presumption. He did not present any evidence to substantiate his claim that the subject property was the exclusive property of Celestino Layug. Thus, the legal presumption that the subject property belongs to the conjugal partnership of the spouses Celestino and Primitiva Layug, stands.
To determine the validity of the sale of subject property by Celestino Layug to Aniceto Yumul, we apply the New Civil Code. As held in Fuentes and Fuentes v. Roca et. al.,[66] if the sale that is questioned was entered into before 3 August 1988, (like the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969) it is the New Civil Code that applies.
Applicable are Articles 166 and 173 of the New Civil Code. They read:
Article 166. Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. If she refuses unreasonably to give her consent, the court may compel her to grant the same.
This article shall not apply to property acquired by the conjugal partnerships before the effective date of this Code.
Article 173. The wife may, during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent, when such consent is required, or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband.
Thus, Article 166 above quoted prohibits a husband (who is the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership per Article 165 of the New Civil Code)[67] from selling commonly owned real property without the wife’s consent. If he sells the real property owned by the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent, the sale is not void, but merely voidable. This is so because Article 173 above quoted gives the wife the right to have the sale annulled during the subsistence of the marriage, and within 10 years from the date of the sale. Failing in that, the wife or her heirs may demand, after dissolution of the marriage, only the value of the property that the husband fraudulently sold.[68]
In this case, the sale of the subject property by the husband Celestino Layug to Aniceto Yumul on 20 October 1969, without the consent of the wife, appellant Primitiva Layug, was voidable. The wife appellant Primitiva Layug could have annulled the sale on the ground of lack of consent from her. However, the wife appellant Pimitiva Layug did not do that. She did not have the sale annulled during the subsistence of her marriage and within 10 years from the date of the sale (i.e., the sale was on 20 October 1969, while the Petition seeking to annul the sale was filed only on 14 April 2003– when the marriage was not subsisting [as by then the husband Celestino was deceased], and more than 10 years from 20 October 1969). Clearly, due to the failure of the wife appellant Primitiva Layug to have the sale annulled timely, the sale is deemed effective. The Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969 validly transferred ownership over the subject property to Aniceto Yumul.
The appellants Layug further allege that the Deed of Absolute Sale is void because the signature of Celestino Layug thereon was forged.
We are not persuaded.
An allegation of forgery and a perfunctory comparison of the signatures by themselves cannot support the claim of forgery, as forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies in the party alleging forgery.[69]
The appellants Layug sought to prove the alleged forgery by visually comparing the signature of Celestino Layug on the Deed of Absolute Sale, with the signatures of Celestino Layug appearing in other documents (i.e., CTC dated 9 January 1978;[70] CTC dated 7 April 1980;[71] Social Security System Membership Identification Card;[72] and Voter’s Affidavit dated 6 December 1986).[73]
However, as held in Rivera v. Turiano,[74] to determine forgery, the process of identification must include the determination of the extent, kind, and significance of the resemblance as well as of the variation. In this case, the appellants Layug failed to determine the extent, kind, and significance of the resemblance and the variation of the signature of Celestino Layug on the Deed of Absolute Sale, and the signatures of Celestino Layug in the documents presented, to explain and prove that the signature of Celestino Layug on the Deed of Absolute Sale is indeed a forgery. Lastly, while the visual comparison of the signature of Celestino Layug on the Deed of Absolute Sale, and the signatures on the documents presented, does show a variation of the signature, but as held in the case of Rivera v. Turiano,[75] the variation of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the signature in the questioned document was forged.
Thus, absent proof that Celestino Layug’s signature appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale executed on 20 October 1969 was not authentic, we conclude that the Deed of Absolute Sale validly transferred ownership of the subject property to Aniceto Yumul.
Regarding the second issue, the Court answers in the affirmative. Appellee Jose Yumul validly acquired the subject property from Aniceto Yumul.
Celestino Layug validly sold subject property to Aniceto Yumul, as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 October 1969. TCT No. 85340[76] in the name of Aniceto Yumul covering the subject property was appropriately issued. Aniceto Yumul then sold the subject property to appellee Jose Yumul through Deed of Absolute Sale dated 28 December 1974.[77] TCT No. 183542 in the name of appellee Jose Yumul covering the subject property was appropriately issued. Hence, appellee Jose Yumul validly acquired the subject property from Aniceto Yumul.
We DISMISS the appeal, and AFFIRM the Decision dated 3 December 2010, and the Order dated 21 March 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Capas, Tarlac.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Veloso (Chairperson) and Lantion, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p. 435.
[2] C.A. Rollo, p. 53.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Records, p. 7.
[5] Records, p. 6.
[6] Records, p. 7.
[7] Records, p. 8.
[8] Records, p. 9.
[9] Records, p. 10.
[10] Records, p. 11.
[11] Records, p. 33.
[12] Exhibit B, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[13] T.S.N., 26 July 2005, p. 12.
[14] Id. at p. 13.
[15] Exhibit E, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[16] Exhibit E-1, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[17] Supra note at 13, p. 14.
[18] Exhibit F-1, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[19] Exhibit G-1, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[20] Exhibit H-2, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[21] Exhibits I-1, I-2, I-3, and I-4, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[22] Supra note at 13, p. 21.
[23] Exhibit D, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[24] Supra note at 13, pp. 10-11.
[25] Exhibit C, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[26] T.S.N., 30 November 2005, p. 10.
[27] Id. at p. 5.
[28] Ibid.
[29] T.S.N., 6 June 2006, p. 5.
[30] Id. at p. 6.
[31] Id. at p. 7.
[32] Supra note at 26, p. 9.
[33] Id at p. 6.
[34] Id. at p. 11.
[35] Id. at pp. 6-7.
[36] Id. at p. 12.
[37] Exhibit J, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[38] Exhibit A, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[39] Supra note at 13, p. 31.
[40] Id. at p. 32.
[41] T.S.N., 2 September 2008, p. 5.
[42] Exhibit 2, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[43] Supra note at 40, p. 20.
[44] T.S.N., 4 November 2008, p. 6.
[45] Supra note at 41, p. 11.
[46] Id. at p. 13.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Id. at pp. 13-14.
[49] Exhibit 4, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[50] Supra note at 41, p. 13.
[51] Id. at p. 14.
[52] T.S.N., 25 August 2009, pp. 3-4.
[53] Exhibit 3-A, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[54] Exhibit 3-B, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[55] Exhibit 3, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[56] Exhibit 3-C, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[57] Supra note at 41, p. 15.
[58] Id. at p. 16.
[59] Records, p. 435.
[60] C.A. Rollo, p. 53.
[61] C.A. Rollo, p. 18.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid.
[64] C.A. Rollo, p. 57.
[65] Pintiano-Anno v. Anno, G.R. No. 163743, 27 January 2006.
[66] G.R. No. 178902, 21 April 2010.
[67] Article 165. The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership.
[68] Fuentes and Fuentes v. Roca, et. al., supra at Note 65.
[69] Rivera v. Turiano, G.R. No. 156249, 7 March 2007, citing Cruz v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, G.R. No. 151311, 31 August 2005.
[70] Exhibit F-1, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[71] Exhibit G-1, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[72] Exhibit H-2, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[73] Exhibits I-1, I-2, I-3, and I-4, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[74] Supra note at 69.
[75] Supra note at 69.
[76] Exhibit D, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.
[77] Exhibit 2, Folder of Exhibits, no pagination.