CA junks Vicki Belo’s ex’s bid for wealth share

MANILA, Philippines – The Court of Appeals (CA) junked the complaint of Vicki Belo’s former partner, Jose Santos, who wanted to get a share of her wealth.

On Tuesday, July 5, the CA’s Twelfth Division affirmed the decision of Judge Lorifel Lacap, presiding judge of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City Branch 69, to dismiss Santos’ petition for co-ownership.

According to the appellate court, there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in junking Santos’ complaint. Santos’ complaint was originally junked on the grounds of improper venue and failure to pay docket fees.

“As held by the RTC, a cursory reading of the petition for declaration of co-ownership shows that none of the real properties claimed by Santos is found in Taguig City where the RTC of Pasig City (Taguig Station) – Branch 69 has jurisdiction,” the CA pointed out.

In his complaint, Santos, a cosmetic surgeon, said that he and Belo were in a romantic relationship from 1990 to 2007.

He also claimed that he is the co-owner of all money and properties that he and Belo acquired through their joint efforts or his actual contributions from 1996 to 1997.

He also explained that due to his limited access to information, passage of time from their separation, and the discretion that Belo exercised in the accumulation of properties, he couldn’t ascertain the entire composition of co-owned assets.

But Santos said that during their relationship, Belo was able to open six clinics with his help and guidance; organized four corporations with himself or Belo as the major stockholders; and accumulated several properties during their union aside from the clinics which include a condominium unit, a house and lot and money deposits in various banks.

The CA added: “As it stands, Santos has not demonstrated any willingness to abide by the rules and to pay the correct docket fees. Thus, for failure by Santos to allege in his petition the value of the real properties, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the same for non-payment of the correct docket fees.” – Rappler.com