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 real estate agent 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.