Agapay vs Palang

Miguel Palang contracted marriage with Carlina in Pangasinan on 1949. He left to

work in Hawaii a few months after the wedding. Their only child Herminia was born
in May 1950. The trial court found evident that as early as 1957, Miguel attempted
to Divorce Carlina in Hawaii. When he returned for good in 1972, he refused to lived
with Carlina and stayed alone in a house in Pozzorubio Pangasinan.

The 63 year old Miguel contracted a subsequent marriage with 19 year old Erlinda
Agapay, herein petitioner. 2 months earlier, they jointly purchased a parcel of
agricultural land located at Binalonan Pangasinan. A house and lot in the same
place was likewise purchased. On the other hand, Miguel and Carlina executed a
Deed of Donation as a form of compromise agreement and agreed to donate their
conjugal property consisting of 6 parcels of land to their child Herminia.

Miguel and Erlindas cohabitation produced a son named Kristopher. In 1979, they
were convicted of concubinage upon Carlinas complaint. 2 years later, Miguel died.
Carlina and her daughter instituted this case for recovery of ownership and
possession with damages against petitioner. They sought to get back the land and
the house and lot located at Binalonan allegedly purchase by Miguel during his
cohabitation with petitioner. The lower court dismissed the complaint but CA
reversed the decision.

ISSUE: Whether the agricultural land and the house and lot should be awarded in
favor of Erlinda Agapay.

HELD:

The sale of the riceland on May 17, 1973, was made in favor of Miguel and Erlinda.
However, their marriage is void because of the subsisting marriage with Carlina.
Only the properties acquired by both parties through their actual joint contribution
shall be owned by them in proportion to their respective contributions. It is required
that there be an actual contribution. If actual contribution is not proved, there will
be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares.

Erlinda established in her testimony that she was engaged in the business of buy
and sell and had a sari-sari store. However, she failed to persuade the court that
she actually contributed money to but the subjected riceland. When the land was
acquired, she was only around 20 years old compared to Miguel who was already 64
years old and a pensioner of the US Government. Considering his youthfulness, its
unrealistic how she could have contributed the P3,750 as her share. Thus, the court
finds no basis to justify the co-ownership with Miguel over the same. Hence, the
Riceland should, as correctly held by CA, revert to the conjugal partnership property
of the deceased and Carlina.

It is immaterial that Miguel and Carlina previously agreed to donate their conjugal
property in favor of Herminia. Separation of property between spouses during the
marriage shall not take place except by judicial order or without judicial conferment
when there is an express stipulation in the marriage settlements. The judgment
resulted from the compromise was not specifically for separation of property and
should not be so inferred.

With respect to the house and lot, Atty Sagun, notary public who prepared the deed
of conveyance for the property revealed the falshood of Erlindas claim that she
bought such property for P20,000 when she was 22 years old. The lawyer testified
that Miguel provided the money for the purchase price and directed Erlindas name
alone be placed as the vendee.

The transaction made by Miguel to Erlinda was properly a donation and which was
clearly void and inexistent by express provision of the law because it was made
between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation.
Moreover, Article 87 of the Family Code, expressly provides that the prohibition
against donation between spouses now applies to donations between persons living
together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, for otherwise, the condition
of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union.

Arcaba vs Tabancura Vda De Batocael

FACTS:

Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became the registered owners of
Lot No. 437-A located at Balintawak St. and Rizal Avenue in Dipolog City,
Zamboanga del Norte in January 1956. Zosima died in 1980 hence Francisco and
his mother in law executed a deed of extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights,
where the latter waived her share consisting of of the property in favor of
Francisco. Since Francisco do not have any children to take care of him after his
retirement, he asked Leticia, his niece, Leticias cousin, Luzviminda and Cirila
Arcaba, the petitioner, who was then a widow and took care of Franciscos house as
well as the store inside.

According to Leticia, Francisco and Cirila were lovers since they slept in the same
room. On the other hand, Erlinda Tabancura, another niece of Francisco claimed
that the latter told her that Cirila was his mistress. However, Cirila defensed herself
that she was a mere helper who could enter the masters bedroom when Francisco
asked her to and that Francisco was too old for her. She denied having sexual
intercourse with Francisco. When the nieces got married, Cirila who was then 34
year-old widow started working for Francisco who was 75 year old widower. The
latter did not pay him any wages as househelper though her family was provided
with food and lodging. Franciscos health deteriorated and became bedridden.
Tabancura testified that Franciscos only source of income was the rentals from his
lot near the public streets.

In January 1991, few months before Francisco died, he executed a Deed of

Donation Inter Vivos where he ceded a portion of Lot 437-A composed of 150 sq
m., together with his house to Cirila who accepted the same. The larger portion of
268 sq m. was left under his name. This was made in consideration of the 10 year
of faithful services of the petitioner. Atty Lacaya notarized the deed and was later
registered by Cirila as its absolute owner.
In Octoer 1991, Francisco died and in 1993, the lot received by Cirila had a market
value of P57,105 and assessed value of P28,550. The decedents nephews and
nieces and his heirs by intestate succession alleged that Cirila was the common-law
wife of Francisco.

ISSUE: Whether or not the deed of donation inter vivos executed by Francisco in
Arcabas favor was valid.

HELD:

The court in this case considered a sufficient proof of common law relationship
wherein donation is not valid. The conclusion was based on the testimony of
Tabancura and certain documents bearing the signature of Cirila Comille such as
application for business permit, sanitary permit and the death certificate of
Francisco. Also, the fact that Cirila did not demand her wages is an indication that
she was not simply a caregiver employee.

Cohabitation means more than sexual intercourse, especially when one of the
parties is already old and may no longer be interested in sex at the very least,
cohabitation is a public assumption of men and women holding themselves out to
the public as such.
Hence, the deed of donation by Francisco in favor of Cirila is void under Art. 87 of
the Family Code.