Here, Civil Code, his oral agreement would not

Here, Husband contend that the house was
acquired with the title of joint tenancy, thus, it’s community property as a
matter of law. The wife asserted that the reason of buying with the title of
joint tenancy was advised by realtor because of tax. When she bought the house,
Robert agreed with oral that the house was hers. Robert rebut that according to
the Civil Code, his oral 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
Esther of her vested property right. If the house became community property
according to the Civil
Code, it would violate the due process of law.