In Babauta v. Babauta, 2011 Guam 15, the Court recognized that "while there is a rebuttable statutory presumption that property acquired by either spouse or both spouses during marriage is community property, the Guam Legislature has specifically classified as separate property a spouse's interest in joint tenancy property." 2011 Guam 15 24. Additionally, the Court held that "the fact that title to property is taken by spouses as joint tenants raises an inference of a gift of the funds used to acquire the property." Id. 25 . This holding is "grounded upon the more general principal that 'a joint tenancy . . . is of necessity an expression of the intention to hold the property otherwise than as community property, and . . . the equal interest of the spouses must therefore be classed as their separate but joint estate in the property." Id. Finally, the Court held that the inference of a gift cannot be rebutted solely by tracing the source of the funds used to acquire the joint tenancy property. Id. The Court also held: Income of a spouse while living separate and apart from the other spouse is separate property. As a general rule, a spouse who, after separation of the parties, uses his or her separate funds to pay preexisting community obligations should be reimbursed upon divorce. Otherwise, parties would be discouraged from making payments on community obligations after separation for fear that they would receive no credit for such payments while the other spouse is awarded a windfall. (Babauta, 2011 Guam 15 32.)