ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.

com

Like 5
Tweet Share Share
Tweet Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1971 > March 1971 Decisions > G.R. No. L-28771 March 31,
1971 - CORNELIA MATABUENA v. PETRONILA CERVANTES:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-28771. March 31, 1971.]

CORNELIA MATABUENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETRONILA CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellee.

Alegre, Roces, Salazar & Saez, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Fernando Gerona, Jr., for Defendant-Appellee.

SYLLABUS

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
1. CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE; DONATIONS BY REASON OF
MARRIAGE; PROHIBITION AGAINST DONATION BETWEEN SPOUSES DURING MARRIAGE; APPLICABLE
TO COMMON LAW RELATIONSHIP. While Art. 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a "donation
between the spouses during the marriage", policy considerations of the most exigent character as well
as the dictates of morality require that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship.
A 1954 Court of Appeals decision Buenaventura v. Bautista, (50 O.G. 3679) interpreting a similar
provision of the old Civil Code speaks unequivocally. If the policy of the law is, in the language of the
opinion of the then Justice J.B.L. Reyes of that Court, "to prohibit donations in favor of the other consort
and his descendants because of fear of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the donor, a
prejudice deeply rooted in our ancient law; porque no se engaen despojandose el uno al otro por amor
que han de consuno, [according to] the Partidas (Part. IV, Tit. Xl, LAW IV), reiterating the rationale Ne
mutuato amore invicem spoliarentur of the Pandects (Bk 24, Tit. I, De donat, inter virum et uxorem);
then there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons living together as husband
and wife without benefit of nuptials. For it is not to be doubted that assent to such irregular connection
for thirty years bespeaks greater influence of one party over the other, so that the danger that the law
seeks to avoid is correspondingly increased. Moreover, as already pointed out by Ulpian (in his lib. 32 ad
Sabinum, fr. 1), it would not be just that such donations should subsist lest the condition of those who
incurred guilt should turn out to be better. So long as marriage remains the cornerstone of our family
law, reason and morality alike demand that the disabilities attached to marriage should likewise attach
to concubinage.

2. ID.; SUCCESSION; INTESTATE SUCCESSION; SURVIVING SPOUSE; RULE WHERE A SISTER

SURVIVES WITH THE WIDOW. The lack of validity of the donation made b~ the deceased to
defendant Petronila Cervantes does not necessarily result in plaintiff having exclusive right to the
disputed property. Prior to the death of Felix Matabuena, the relationship between him and the
defendant was legitimated by their marriage on March 28. 1962. She is therefore his widow. As provided
in the Civil Code, she is entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the plaintiff, as the surviving sister to
the other half.

DECISION
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
March-1971 Jurisprudence
A.C. No. 179-J March 15, 1971 - CONRADO
MONTALBAN v. MATEO CANONOY
G.R. No. L-28389 March 15, 1971 - TIONG SAN
EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL. v. ANDRES LAO, SR., ET AL.
G.R. No. L-29385 March 15, 1971 - FLORENTINO
TAMAYO, ET AL. v. MANILA CORDAGE WORKERS
UNION, ETC., ET AL.
G.R. No. L-22551 March 16, 1971 - WONG SAU MEI,
ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. L-33149 March 16, 1971 - UNITED
PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. v. GODOFREDO DEANG
G.R. No. L-25932 March 19, 1971 - LUCILA B. VDA. DE
AZARIAS v. MANOLO L. MADDELA
G.R. No. L-26752 March 19, 1971 - PATERNO
SANTOS, ET AL., ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
MANILA, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-27388 March 23, 1971 - TRINIDAD RASAY-
LAHOZ, ET AL. v. DOMINGO LEONOR, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. L-29777-83 March 26, 1971 - GREGORIO
SOLIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-24893 March 26, 1971 - COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. A. SORIANO Y CIA, ET AL.
A.C. No. 137-J March 27, 1971 - MARCIANA
BUENAVENTURA v. MARIANO V. BENEDICTO
G.R. No. L-19614 March 27, 1971 - JESUS M. GABOYA,
ET AL. v. ANTONIO MA. CUI, ET AL.
FERNANDO, J.:
A question of first impression is before this Court in this litigation. We are called upon to decide whether
the ban on a donation between the spouses during a marriage applies to a common-law relationship. 1
The plaintiff, now appellant Cornelia Matabuena, a sister to the deceased Felix Matabuena, maintains
that a donation made while he was living maritally without benefit of marriage to defendant, now
appellee Petronila Cervantes, was void. Defendant would uphold its validity. The lower court, after noting
that it was made at a time before defendant was married to the donor, sustained the latters stand.
Hence this appeal. The question, as noted, is novel in character, this Court not having had as yet the
opportunity of ruling on it. A 1954 decision of the Court of Appeals, Buenaventura v. Bautista, 2 by the
then Justice J. B. L. Reyes, who was appointed to this Court later that year, is indicative of the
appropriate response that should be given. The conclusion reached therein is that a donation between
common-law spouses falls within the prohibition and is "null and void as contrary to public policy." 3
Such a view merits fully the acceptance of this Court. The decision must be reversed.
In the decision of November 23, 1965, the lower court, after stating that in plaintiffs complaint alleging
absolute ownership of the parcel of land in question, she specifically raised the question that the
donation made by Felix Matabuena to defendant Petronila Cervantes was null and void under the
aforesaid article of the Civil Code and that defendant on the other hand did assert ownership precisely
because such a donation was made in 1956 and her marriage to the deceased did not take place until
1962, noted that when the case was called for trial on November 19, 1965, there was stipulation of facts
which it quoted. 4 Thus: "The plaintiff and the defendant assisted by their respective counsels, jointly
agree and stipulate: (1) That the deceased Felix Matabuena owned the property in question; (2) That
said Felix Matabuena executed a Deed of Donation inter vivos in favor of Defendant, Petronila Cervantes
over the parcel of land in question on February 20, 1956, which same donation was accepted by
defendant; (3) That the donation of the land to the defendant which took effect immediately was made
during the common law relationship as husband and wife between the defendant-done and the now
deceased donor and later said donor and done were married on March 28, 1962; (4) That the deceased
Felix Matabuena died intestate on September 13, 1962; (5) That the plaintiff claims the property by
reason of being the only sister and nearest collateral relative of the deceased by virtue of an affidavit of
self-adjudication executed by her in 1962 and had the land declared in her name and paid the estate
and inheritance taxes thereon" 5
The judgment of the lower court on the above facts was adverse to plaintiff. It reasoned out thus: "A
donation under the terms of Article 133 of the Civil Code is void if made between the spouses during the
marriage. When the donation was made by Felix Matabuena in favor of the defendant on February 20,
1956, Petronila Cervantes and Felix Matabuena were not yet married. At that time they were not
spouses. They became spouses only when they married on March 28, 1962, six years after the deed of
donation had been executed." 6
We reach a different conclusion. While Art. 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a "donation between
the spouses during the marriage," policy considerations of the most exigent character as well as the
dictates of morality require that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship. We
reverse.
1. As announced at the outset of this opinion, a 1954 Court of Appeals decision, Buenaventura v.
Bautista, 7 interpreting a similar provision of the old Civil Code 8 speaks unequivocally. If the policy of
the law is, in the language of the opinion of the then Justice J.B.L. Reyes of that Court, "to prohibit
donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue and improper
pressure and influence upon the donor, a prejudice deeply rooted in our ancient law; porque no se
engaen despojandose el uno al otro por amor que han de consuno [according to] the Partidas (Part IV,
Tit. XI, LAW IV), reiterating the rationale Ne mutuato amore invicem spoliarentur of the Pandects (Bk.
24, Tit. 1, De donat, inter virum et uxorem); then there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive
policy to persons living together as husband and wife without the benefit of nuptials. For it is not to be
doubted that assent to such irregular connection for thirty years bespeaks greater influence of one party
over the other, so that the danger that the law seeks to avoid is correspondingly increased. Moreover, as
already pointed out by Ulpian (in his lib. 32 ad Sabinum, fr. 1), it would not be just that such donations
should subsist, lest the condition of those who incurred guilt should turn out to be better. So long as
marriage remains the cornerstone of our family law, reason and morality alike demand that the
disabilities attached to marriage should likewise attach to concubinage." 9
2. It is hardly necessary to add that even in the absence of the above pronouncement, any other
conclusion cannot stand the test of scrutiny. It would be to indict the framers of the Civil Code for a
failure to apply a laudable rule to a situation which in its essentials cannot be distinguished. Moreover, if
it is at all to be differentiated, the policy of the law which embodies a deeply-rooted notion of what is
just and what is right would be nullified if such irregular relationship instead of being visited with
disabilities would be attended with benefits. Certainly a legal norm should not be susceptible to such a
reproach. If there is ever any occasion where the principle of statutory construction that what is within
the spirit of the law is as much a part of it as what is written, this is it. Otherwise the basic purpose
discernible in such codal provision would not be attained. Whatever omission may be apparent in an
interpretation purely literal of the language used must be remedied by an adherence to its avowed
objective. In the language of Justice Pablo: "El espiritu que informa la ley debe ser la luz que ha de guiar
a los tribunales en la aplicacin de sus disposiciones. 10
3. The lack of validity of the donation made by the deceased to defendant Petronila Cervantes does not
necessarily result in plaintiff having exclusive right to the disputed property. Prior to the death of Felix
Matabuena, the relationship between him and the defendant was legitimated by their marriage on March
28, 1962. She is therefore his widow. As provided for in the Civil Code, she is entitled to one-half of the
inheritance and the plaintiff, as the surviving sister, to the other half. 11
WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of November 23, 1965 dismissing the complaint with costs is
reversed. The questioned donation is declared void, with the rights of plaintiff and defendant as pro
indiviso heirs to the property in question recognized. The case is remanded to the lower court for its
appropriate disposition in accordance with the above opinion. Without pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ.,
concur.
Teehankee, J, took no part.
Endnotes:
1. Art 133 of the Civil Code provides: "Every donation between the spouses during the
marriage shall be void. This prohibition does not apply when the donation takes effect
 G.R. Nos. L-20662 & L-20663 March 27, 1971 - after the death of the donor. Neither does this prohibition apply to moderate gifts which
PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS GUILD v. COMPAIA the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing." cralaw virtua1aw library

MARITIME, ET AL.
2. 50 O.G. 3679 (1954).
G.R. No. L-22519 March 27, 1971 - VICENTE
GOTAMCO HERMANOS v. IRMA ROHDE SHOTWELL, ET
3. Ibid., p. 3686.
AL.

G.R. No. L-26619 March 27, 1971 - ZENITH FILMS, 4. Decision, Record on Appeal, pp. 17-19.
INC. v. JOSE B. HERRERA, ET AL.
5. Ibid, pp. 19-20.
G.R. No. L-25016 March 27, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. MODESTO BERACES, ET AL. 6. Ibid, p. 21.

G.R. No. L-27632 March 27, 1971 - MIGUEL OCAMPO
v. LIBERATO S. DOMINGO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-28466 March 27, 1971 - ALBERTO T.
REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
7. 50 O.G. 3679.
8. Art. 1334 of the former Civil Code was similarly worded: "All donations between the
spouses made during the marriage shall be void."
cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. L-26068 March 29, 1971 - CITY OF CEBU v.
FELIMON R. CONSOLACION
G.R. No. L-32010 March 29, 1971 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. v. ANGEL P. BACANI, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-28633 March 30, 1971 - CENTRAL SURETY
& INSURANCE COMPANY v. C. N. HODGES, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-30298 March 30, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. IGNACIO MERCADO
A.C. No. 181-J March 31, 1971 - JOSE C. LUCIANO v.
HERMINIO C. MARIANO
G.R. No. L-23722 March 31, 1971 - JUAN ESPANILLA,
ET AL. v. LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL, ET AL.
9. Buenaventura v. Bautista, 50 O.G. 3679, 3686 (1954).
10. The excerpt from Yellow Taxi and Pasay Trans. Workers Union v. Manila Yellow Taxicab
Co., 80 Phil. 833, 838 (1948) reads in full: "Esta interpretacin de la ley es insostenible. El
espiritu que informa la ley debe ser la luz que ha de guiar a los tribunales en la aplicacin
de sus dispociones. No deben atenerse a la letra de la ley cuando la interpretacin literal
se separa de la intencin de la legislatura especialmente cuando lleva a conclusiones
incompatibles con objeto manifesto de la ley. Cuando hay conflicto entre la interpretacin
literal y la interpretacin fundada en el proposito de la ley, la ltima debe prevalecer." Cf.
Taada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil, 1051 (1957); Hidalgo v. Hidalgo, L-25326-27, May 29, 1970,
33 SCRA 105; Casela v. Court of Appeals, L-26754, Oct. 16, 1970, 35 SCRA 279.
11. According to Art. 1001 of the Civil Code: "Should brothers and sisters or their children
survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the
inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children the other half. (953, 837a)."

G.R. No. L-24237 March 31, 1971 - DONATA LUNA v.

PEDRO PACIS

G.R. No. L-24358 March 31, 1971 - ELISEO GUEVARA, Ads by Google Marriage Law Court Marriage Property Law
ET AL. v. PLACIDO C. RAMOS
Ads by Google Court Marriage Insurance Law Company Law
G.R. No. L-24663 March 31, 1971 - RAMON A. Ads by Google Court Marriage Civil Law Supreme Court
GONZALES, ET AL. v. PROVINCE OF ILOILO

G.R. No. L-24898 March 31, 1971 - GO OH, ET AL. v. Back to Home | Back to Main
MARTINIANO VIVO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-25421 March 31, 1971 - SIMEON

PATALINGHUD v. FELISA BALLESTEROS QUICK SEARCH
G.R. No. L-26608 March 31, 1971 - PEDRO G.
PERALTA v. ISMAEL MATHAY

G.R. No. L-27377 March 31, 1971 - DY PAC PAKIAO 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
WORKERS UNION v. DY PAC II AND COMPANY, INC., ET
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
AL.
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. L-28317 March 31, 1971 - SANTIAGO
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
ORTEGA v. ANDRES ORCINE, ET AL.
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
G.R. No. L-28771 March 31, 1971 - CORNELIA
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
MATABUENA v. PETRONILA CERVANTES
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
G.R. No. L-28783 March 31, 1971 - PERLA REYES v.
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
JUSTINA CARRASCO, ET AL.
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
G.R. No. L-29499 March 31, 1971 - IN RE: CHUA SIU
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
TING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
G.R. No. L-29715 March 31, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
PHIL. v. ADELO ABEJUELA
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
G.R. Nos. L-29938-39 March 31, 1971 - SAMAR
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
MINING CO., INC. v. WORKMENS COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL. 2013 2014 2015 2016

G.R. No. L-30054 March 31, 1971 - SECRETARY OF

AGRICULTURE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-31259 March 31, 1971 - MANILA TRADING

& SUPPLY CO. v. WORKMENS COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL. Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

G.R. No. L-32170 March 31, 1971 - CITIZENS SURETY

& INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. A. MELENCIO-
HERRERA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-32740 March 31, 1971 - PHILIPPINE AIR

LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. PHILIPPINE AIR
LINES, INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-32824 March 31, 1971 - HOLLANDA A. S.

EVANGELISTA, ET AL. v. LA PROVEEDORA, INC., ET AL.
Copyright 1998 - 20171998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com RED