Here, according to the Civil Code, it would violate

Here, 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 bought the house, husband agreed with oral
that the house was hers. Husband testified that he didn’t tell the house is her
house and there was no evidence. However, their children testified that he
several times told that the house is one of the wife. Husband 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 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.