GENERAL

SPOUSES

PROHIBITION

OF

DONATIONS

BETWEEN

Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

CASE No. 80
[G.R. No. 146683. November 22, 2001.]
CIRILA ARCABA, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA TABANCURA
VDA. DE BATOCAEL, SEIGFREDO C. TABANCURA, DORIS
C. TABANCURA, LUZELLI C. TABANCURA, BELEN C.
TABANCURA, RAUL A. COMILLE, BERNADETTE A.
COMILLE, and ABNER A. COMILLE, respondents.

PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.:

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. Francisco and his mother-in-law
(MIL) executed a deed of extrajudicial partition with
waiver of rights, where the MIL 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 (niece)
Leticias cousin, Luzviminda and Cirila Arcaba, who was
then a widow and took care of Franciscos house as well
as the store inside.
Leticia: Francisco and Cirila were lovers since they slept
in the same room.
Erlinda Tabancura, another niece of Francisco, claimed
that the latter told her that Cirila was his mistress.
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.
Cirila 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.
Francisco did not pay Cirila 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.
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 (10 year of faithful services of the Cirila). Atty
Lacaya notarized the deed and was later registered by
Cirila as its absolute owner.
October 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 decedentss 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: No. 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.

CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS

Downloaded by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1
CASE No. 81

G.R. No. L-55322 February 16, 1989

MOISES JOCSON, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS,
AGUSTINA
JOCSON-VASQUEZ,
ERNESTO
VASQUEZ, respondents.
PONENTE: MEDIALDEA, J.:
FACTS:

Petition for Certiorari to review CA decision [February

16, 1989]
Spouses Emilio Jocson & Alejandra Poblete had 2
children: Moises Jocson & Agustina Jocson-Vasquez.
Agustina is married to Ernesto Vasquez. Alejandra died
intestate.
April 1, 1972 Emilio died intestate.
June 20, 1973: Moises filed complaint, assailing validity
of 3 documents executed by Emilio during his lifetime.
He prays that the following be declared null & void
and that the properties involved be partitioned between
him & his sister:
o Deed of Sale executed July 27, 1968 wherein
Emilio sold to Agustina 6 parcels of land in Naic,
Cavite for P10,000.00. Deed included Emilios
manifestation that the lands were sold at a low
price because it was his loving, helpful &

thoughtful daughter who bought the property. He

says his son possesses such qualities too. He
further claims that the sale did not violate any
law & that he did not touch his wifes properties.
He acknowledged receipt of payment.
o Deed of Sale executed July 27, 1968, selling 2
rice mills & a camalig in Naic, Cavite to Agustina
for P5,000.00. Emilio acknowledged receipt too
o Deed of Extrajudicial Partition & Adjudication
w/Sale executed March 9, 1969 wherein Emilio &
Agustina,
excluding
Moises, extrajudicially
partitioned unsettled estate of Alejandra dividing
such into 3. Emilio sold his share to Agustina.
All documents were executed before a notary public.
Nos.
1
&
2
were
registeredw/the Register of Deeds. Old certificates were
cancelled & new certificates issued in the name
of Agustina.
Moises allegations:
o .#1 is null & void because his fathers consent
was obtained by fraud, deceit, undue pressure,
influence & other illegal machinations. He also
alleges that property was sold for a simulated
price considering that his sister had no work
or livelihood of her own. Also, he claims that the
contract is fictitious, simulated & fabricated.
o Same allegations for #2 & #3 with additional
allegation that he was deliberately excluded &
they intended to defraud him of his legitimate
share. He also claims that defendants were
employed in their parents business & they must
have used business earnings or simulated
consideration in order to purchase the properties.
o No real sale between dad & daughter living
under same roof.
o Dad didnt need money since sold properties
were all income-producing.
o #1 & #2 are unliquidated conjugal properties
that Emilio cant validly sell.
o #3 he only questions sale of dads share to sister
but not extrajudicial partition.

RTC: decided in favor of Moises. Documents were

simulated & fictitious because: 1) no proof that
Agustina did pay for the properties, 2) prices were
grossly inadequate tantamount to lack of consideration
at
all,
3)
improbability
of
sale
considering
circumstances. Designed to exclude Moises.
Declared #1 & #2 properties as conjugal by
virtue of registration papers which declared:
Emilio Jocson, married to Alejandra Poblete.
Ordered registration of property to 2 children.
CA: reversed. Nos. 1 & 2 barred by prescription
because annulment of contract based on fraud must be
filed 4 years from discovery of such which begins on
the date of the registration with the Register of Deeds.
All documents actually & intended to be binding &
effective against Emilio. Proof of such: issuance of new
titles. Partition with sale in #3 is valid since it was done
in accordance with New Civil Code Art. 996 on intestate
succession & Moises 1/3 has not been prejudiced.

WON prices were simulated

ISSUES & RATIO:

WON suit is solely based on fraud and as such is
barred by prescription

NO. Contract tainted by vitiated consent such as when

consents obtained by fraud is voidable (CC Art. 1330)
& action for annulment must be filed w/in 4 yrs from
time of discovery of fraud (CC Art. 1391 par.4).
Discovery means the time when contract was
registered w/Register of Deeds (Gerona vs. De
Guzman). If this was the only consideration, then it is
barred by prescription. But he further assailed that sale
was w/o consideration since amount paid were merely
simulated. Contracts w/o cause or consideration
produce no effect whatsoever (CC Art. 1352).A sale
w/simulated price is void (CC Art. 1471 & 1409[3]) and
action for declaration of its nullity does not prescribe
(CC Art. 1410).

WON sales were w/o consideration

NO. Since Moises alleges such, it is incumbent upon

him
to
prove
his
allegations,
especially
since documents
show
that
his dad
(vendor)
acknowledged receipt of price & they are notarized. He
failed to do so and thus he was not able to overcome
the presumption that a contract is with consideration
(CC Art. 1354). Even his own witness contradicted his
claim
that his
sister
& her
husband had
no source of income. Witness Bagnas said that Agustina
& Ernesto were into buy & sell of palay & rice. Even he
himself said that he didnt know if his sister had other
businesses. Agustina testified that she was into buy &
sell even prior to her marriage.

NO. No proof of inadequacy of price. In fact, purchase

price was higher than assessed value (#1: P10k vs.
P8920.00, #2 P5k vs. P3,500, and #3 P8k vs.
P24,840.00). Besides difference between market value
& purchase price is understandable considering fathers
filial love for his daughter. Gross inadequacy of price
alone does not affect the contract except perhaps an
indication of defect in consent (CC Art. 1470). No proof
of defective consent.

WON sale is improbable.

NO. Improbability of sale is purely speculative. Not

relevant considering that all essential requirements
for contract are clearly present: consent, object &
cause.

WON properties in #1
properties of Emilio & wife.

& #2

were

conjugal

NO. CC Art. 160 provides that all property of marriage is

presumed to belong to conjugal property unless proven
otherwise. Condition sine qua non (main thing) would
be for party who invokes this to prove that properties
were indeed acquired during the marriage (Cobb-Perez
vs. Lantin). Thus, Moises has to present proof that
properties in question were indeed obtained during the

marriage of their parents before he can invoke the

presumption. However, titles used by RTC in declaring
properties as CP (see RTC decision in bold letters) are
insufficient proof. Doesnt say when properties were
obtained. Acquisition of title (actual owning of land) is
different from registration. Possible that Emilio acquired
properties when he was still a bachelor & only
registered such after marriage. Married to phrase is a
mere description of Emilios civil status at the time of
registration (Litam v Rivera). It should be interpreted as
Emilio is the owner, property registered in his name

alone & that he is married. Consistent with principle

that registration of property in name of only one spouse
doesnt negate possibility of it being conjugal (Bucoy
vs. Paulino). Both require sufficient, clear & convincing
proof to rebut the presumption. Moises should have
presented sufficient proof to show that properties were
acquired during the marriage so that he may enjoy the
presumption under Art. 160. Due to lack of proof,
presumption does not exist, thus, properties are
considered exclusive to Emilio.
DECISION: Petition dismissed. CA affirmed.