Joe Pallugna RAMON married Jen in 1989. At the time of marriage, Ramon was still married to Rose, which marriage was not nullified. The marriage between Ramon and Jen did not produce any child but Ramon had a daughter named Evangeline by with his marriage to Rose. Jen also had a son named Crispin with a previous relationship. In 1999, Ramon and Jen acquired a parcel of land in Manila and when Ramon died in 2002 and Jen died in 1997, Evangeline and Crispin contested the ownership of the land in Manila. The issue among them is on whether or not co-ownership covered the land? The Supreme Court in the case of Ventura versus Abuda, G.R. No. 202932, October 23, 2013, ruled that in unions between a man and a woman who are incapacitated to marry each other, the ownership over properties acquired during the subsistence of that relationship shall be based on the actual contribution of the parties. It is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition of property in order to lay claim to any portion of it. The presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply. This is a reiteration of Art. 148 of the Family Code which provides that “In cases of cohabitation wherein the parties are incapacitated to marry each other, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common proportion to their respective proportions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.” Thus, the property in Manila can be considered common property if: (1) these were acquired during the cohabitation of Ramon and Jen, and (2) there is evidence that the property was acquired through the parties’ joint contribution of money, property or industry. There is then need of proof by Evangeline or by Crispin to show on how Ramon and Jen contributed to the acquisition of the Manila land. If Evangeline can prove that the land was acquired solely through the efforts or money of Ramon, then Evangeline can acquire the land solely for herself, and vice versa. However, if neither can prove by satisfactory evidence, then the property is presumed to be owned in common and equally. E-mail: joepallugna@yahoo.com