Gonzales-Asdala v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.

 

Gonzales-Asdala v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.

G.R. No. 257982

February 22, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Petitioner and her husband, Wynne Asdala, applied with Metrobank for a loan to finance the renovation of their house built on a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 377659, and registered in the name of "Wynne B. Asdala, married to Fatima G. Asdala." Subsequently, the petitioner and her husband executed Promissory Notes in favor of Metrobank. As security, they were required to constitute a Real Estate Mortgage on the subject land. In the years that followed, petitioner alleged that she and her husband were periodically billed for MRI premiums, but no receipts were issued, and neither was a policy released in their favor. Wynne died. Petitioner notified Metrobank and requested for the immediate discharge of the mortgage on account of the fact that the MRI premiums were paid by her husband during his lifetime. However, Metrobank denied the request and averred that the documents for the procurement of the MRI were signed by petitioner only, thus, was issued only in her name. Metrobank also showed that the payment of the insurance premiums was sourced from the savings account under the name of petitioner alone.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the subject parcel of land is conjugal.

 

HELD:

                Yes. Article 105 of the Family Code explicitly mandates that the Family Code shall apply to conjugal partnerships established before the said law took effect without prejudice to vested rights already acquired under the Civil Code or other laws. Consequently, under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, if the properties are acquired during the marriage, the presumption is that they are conjugal; the party claiming that they are not conjugal has the burden of proving his claim. This is counter-balanced by the requirement that the properties must first be proven to have been acquired during the marriage before they are presumed conjugal. The presumption of conjugality is rebuttable, but only with strong, clear and convincing evidence. Although Plaintiff claims that the piece of land mortgaged was the exclusive property of her husband at the time of the mortgage, the former did not present independent evidence thereof aside from the TCT over said property. While Plaintiff alluded during trial to some deed of sale evidencing the decedent's acquisition, she failed to present the same. Thus, absent any other proof of the exact date of acquisition of the subject property, the Court stands by its basic tenet that a property acquired during the marriage is presumed conjugal.