Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > January 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2260 January 19, 1906 - PAULA ROCO v. ESTEFANIA R. VILLAR

005 Phil 547:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2260. January 19, 1906. ]

PAULA ROCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESTEFANIA VILLAR Y RIVERA, Defendant-Appellee.

Gibbs & Kincaid, for Appellant.

William J. Rohde, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY; EVIDENCE; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. — The husband of the plaintiff abandoned her and went to live with the defendant. One witness, a casual acquaintance, testified that the defendant was very poor. Two other witnesses testified that they saw the husband of the plaintiff directing the construction of houses upon lots of land, one of which was conveyed by the husband to the defendant, and the other six of which were conveyed to the defendant by third persons. Held, That these facts were not sufficient to show that the conveyance of the first lot was without consideration, and that the husband furnished the money for the purchase of the other six.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


Plaintiff and Juan Crisostomo Villamil were married in 1891. They lived together until 1895, when Crisostomo abandoned the plaintiff and went to live with the defendant. On the 7th of September, 1896, Crisostomo conveyed to the defendant a lot of land in Calle Novaliches, in Manila, for an expressed consideration of 600 pesos. In 1897 three other tracts of land were conveyed to the defendant by the their then owners. In 1899 another tract was so conveyed by its then owner to the defendant, and in 1900 two other lots of land were conveyed by their then owners to the defendant. Crisostomo having died, the plaintiff brought this action asking that it be declared that these parcels of land belonged to the conjugal partnership formed by herself and Crisostomo on the ground that the conveyances were fraudulent as to her. Judgment was entered in the court below for the defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and she has brought this case here by bill of exceptions.

The theory of the appellant is that the lot of land which was conveyed directly by the husband to the defendant was conveyed without any consideration, and that the defendant paid nothing for such conveyance. As to the other six tracts of land, her theory is that the money which was paid therefor to the then owners thereof was paid by her husband, and nothing was contributed by the defendant to the purchase price thereof. The evidence to support this claim is found first in the testimony of the witness Lucena Baldonado. Her testimony was to the effect that she had known the defendant for some time, and that during this time the defendant was very poor, and lived by charity. It is very evident that the acquaintance between defendant and the witness was merely casual. Most of her evidence relates to the time when the defendant lived in Intramuros, where the witness resided, and it is altogether too indefinite in its character to prove that the defendant did not, in 1896 and the following years, have means with which to buy the properties in question. The only other evidence in the case to show that the money for these purchases was furnished by Crisostomo was the statement of two witnesses to the effect that they saw him directing the construction of houses which were erected upon the lots in question.

After examining all the evidence in the case we can not say that it preponderates against the decision of the trial court. The judgment of that court is affirmed, with the costs of this against the appellant, and after the expiration of twenty days judgment should be entered in accordance herewith and the case remanded to the court below for execution of said judgment. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2070 January 2, 1906 - W.H. TIPTON v. RAMON A. MARTINEZ

    005 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 2227 January 2, 1906 - MAXIMINO ESPIRITU v. JOSE LUIS

    005 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 3021 January 2, 1906 - LEONISA YTURRALDE, ET AL. v. ALBINO SANTOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 2030 January 4, 1906 - ALFRED DAVID OEHLERS v. ROBERT HARTWIG

    005 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 2050 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ROHILLA MARU

    005 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 2236 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NETA SHIYOKISHI

    005 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 2397 January 4, 1906 - LO SUI v. HARDEE WYATT

    005 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 2555 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES SALAZAR

    005 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 2567 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. GERMAN DE TORRES, ET AL.

    005 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 1449 January 5, 1906 - VICENTE GOMEZ GARCIA, ET AL. v. JACINTA HIPOLITO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 2021 January 5, 1906 - ANICETO LORENZO v. JOSE NAVARRO

    005 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. 2151 January 6, 1906 - SALVADOR BROCAL v. JUAN VICTOR MOLINA

    005 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 2178 January 6, 1906 - SONS OF ISIDRO DE LA RAMA v. TEODORO BENEDICTO

    005 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 1973 January 8, 1906 - TAN DIANGSENG TAN SUI PIC v. LUCIO ECHAUZ TAN SUICO

    005 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 2542 January 8, 1906 - MARGARITA TORIBIO, ET AL. v. MODESTA TORIBIO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 2587 January 8, 1906 - CARMELO FLOR BAGO v. DOMINGA GARCIA

    005 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 1993 January 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM GEORGE HOLLIS

    005 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 1994 January 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM GEORGE HOLLIS

    005 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 2038 January 13, 1906 - A.M. ESSABHOY v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    005 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 2235 January 15, 1906 - THOMAS PEPPERELL v. B.F. TAYLOR

    005 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 2244 January 18, 1906 - LEONCIO PANAGUITON v. JAMES J. WATKINS

    005 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 1641 January 19, 1906 - GERMAN JABONETA v. RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 2253 January 19, 1906 - MARIANO GARCIA MARTINEZ v. CORDOBA & CONDE

    005 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 2260 January 19, 1906 - PAULA ROCO v. ESTEFANIA R. VILLAR

    005 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 2345 January 19, 1906 - ROBERT M. LOPER v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY

    005 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 2586 January 19, 1906 - TOMAS GUISON v. MARIA CONCEPCION

    005 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 2580 January 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO SEVILLA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 1810 January 22, 1906 - J.W. MARKER v. EULOGIO GARCIA

    005 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 2239 January 22, 1906 - WILLIAM GITT v. MOORE & HIXSON

    005 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 2300 January 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO MALLARI

    005 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 2606 January 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO DE LOS SANTOS

    005 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 2426 January 24, 1906 - FERNANDO MONTANO LOPEZ v. PEDRO MARTINEZ ILUSTRE

    005 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 2597 January 24, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GLEFONEA

    005 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 2285 January 25, 1906 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. WILLIAMS, CHANDLER & CO.

    005 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 2295 January 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CRUZ

    005 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 2323 January 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NATIVIDAD PAREJA

    005 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 2387 January 31, 1906 - OLIVER & TRILL v. W.E. SHERMAN

    005 Phil 577