Suspended effect

When a person validly marries again after the death of the first spouse, issues on ownership of properties sometimes cannot be avoided because of the complications. This is illustrated in this case of Pablo.

Pablo first married Linda. During their marriage they purchased a house and lot in a subdivision under a Lease and Conditional Sale Agreement wherein the Seller-Lessor transferred only the temporary use and enjoyment of the property to Pablo subject to payment of a monthly rental of P300 for twenty years. The Agreement also provides that if at the expiration of twenty years, Pablo should have fully and faithfully complied with all the obligations stipulated, the Seller-Lessor would immediately sell, transfer and convey to Pablo, the property subject of the Agreement.

Four years later however, Linda died leaving Pablo and their three children. Nevertheless, Pablo still faithfully continued paying for the house and lot. Then after eight more years of payment, he got married again to Belen. Thereafter, payment of the house and lot was made out of the conjugal funds of the second marriage. But at the behest of Pablo, one of his daughters by his first marriage built a house at the back portion of the property. Said daughter, Naty, thus offered to pay and continued paying the monthly rental until the full lease amounts had been fully paid.

Upon such full payment, the Lessor-Seller executed in favor of Pablo the Deed of Absolute Sale over the premises then right the next day, he donated all his rights, title and interest over the property to Naty.

But when Pablo subsequently died, Belen and her two children with Pablo claimed that the property was acquired during the second marriage when the final deed of sale was executed. Therefore, she contended that said property was their conjugal property. Naty on the other hand contended that the property was acquired during the marriage of her father and mother when the Lease and Conditional Agreement was signed. Was Naty correct?

No. The Agreement entered into by Pablo during his first marriage to Naty’s mother, Linda, is in the nature of a contract to sell as contra-distinguished from a contract of sale. In a contract to sell, the sale is conditional in the sense that the ownership is not transferred upon delivery of the property but upon full payment of the purchase price. Compliance with the stipulated payments is a condition that suspends the obligation of the Lessor-Seller to convey title to the property. So what was vested in the conjugal partnership of the first marriage is only the beneficial title. Pablo acquired ownership of the property only upon full payment of the lease rentals or amortizations. And this was already during the second marriage. So the property belongs to the conjugal partnership of the second marriage with Belen. This being the case, Belen will be getting  1/2 while the other half will be divided among her two children and herself at 1/6 each.

But Belen must reimburse the amounts advanced by the conjugal partnership of Linda and Pablo, and by Naty. Furthermore Naty is the exclusive owner of the house she erected on the back portion of the lot over which she has all the rights as a builder in good faith either to demand reimbursement for the necessary and useful expenses in building the house, or pay the price of the land on which it is erected, as set forth in Article 448 of the Civil Code (Jovellanos vs. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 126).

Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law, and Criminal Law Vols. I and II, are now available at 403 Sunrise Condominium, 226 Ortigas Ave. Greenhills, S.J. Tel. 7249445. 

*   *   *

Our e-mail address: [email protected]