Here, the issue is whether the property
raised from form of title subject to the attribute of the property or not. Husband
insisted that the house was purchased with the title of joint tenancy, thus,
it’s community property. The wife asserted that the reason of buying with the
title of joint tenancy was advised by realtor because of tax. When she took the
house, husband consented verbally that the house was hers. Husband said that he
didn’t tell the house is her house and there was no evidence. However, their
children told that he several times told that the house is one of the wife.

Husband rebut that according to the Civil Code, his
verbal agreement would not be effective because the oral agreement cannot
overcome the presumption that property acquired during marriage in joint tenancy is community property. Thus, the
purchasing money was only separate money, but increasing money after purchasing
would be community property. The Court found that the issue is whether the law
of the Civil Code section is able to apply
this case with retroactive. The Court held that even though the intention of the Civil Code is applying with
retroactive, the law would be unconstitutional because retroactive application
of this law deprives the wife of her vested property right. If the house became
community property according to the Civil
Code, it would violate the due process of law.