RIVERA V. VILLANUEVA (CIVIL)

The cohabitation of Villanueva and Gonzales from 1927-1963 was adulterous, their property relations during those 36 years were not governed by Article 144 of the Civil Code, which applies only if the couple living together is not in any way incapacitated from getting married.

According to the doctrine laid down by Juaniza Agapay v. Palang, we expounded on this doctrine that in such relationship, it is necessary for each of the partners to be able to lay claim to any portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply.

HERBON V. PALAD (CIVIL)

As to the shares in the disputed parcel of land that are subject of the 2 deeds acquired during the marriage of Gonzalo and Remedios, they are also conjugal shares, such that upon the death of Gonzalo, one-half of the subject shares were automatically reserved to the surviving spouse, Remedios, as her share in the conjugal partnership. Gonzalo's rights to the other half, including his conjugal share from his first marriage, were transmitted upon his death to his widow, Remedios and his children with the first wife Alejandra. upon the death of Remedios, the shares which she inherited from Gonzalo, are inherited in turn by her 3 sons, herein petitioners, being her compulsory heirs.

Thus, petitioners, as co-owners, have the right to possess and occupy the subject lot. Until there is partition, the New Civil Code provisions on co-ownership shall govern the rights of the parties. The specific shares of the parties cannot be resolved in this case since it is not clear from the records whether all of Gonzalo's children from his first marriage were alive at the time of his death.

An action for partition is the proper forum to determine the particular portions properly pertaining to petitioners and respondents, as well as the accounting of the profits or income received by petitioners from the use of the land.

ABING V. WAEYAN (CIVIL)

Any property acquired by common-law spouses during their period of cohabitation is presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts and is owned by them in equal shares.

Their property relationship is governed by the rules on CO-OWNERSHIP. and under this regime, they owned their properties in common "in equal shares." Being herself a co-wner of the structure in question, respondent, as correctly ruled by the CA, may not be ejected therefrom.