CHING vs. GOYANKO, JR. GR No.

165879
November 10, 2006

FACTS:

• The respondents are the seven children out of the legal union of Joseph
Goyanko, Sr. and Epifania dela Cruz.

• Respondents claim that in 1961, their parents acquired a real property in

Cebu which was first registered in the name of their aunt as their parents was
still Chinese citizens this time.

• In May, 1993, their aunt executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject
property in favor of their father. In turn, on October 1993, respondent’s father
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the petitioner, Maria Ching, his
common-law wife.

• After Goyanko Sr.’s death, the respondents discovered that the property had
been transferred to the name of the petitioner.

• Thus, the respondents filed a Complaint for the recovery of the property and
damages against petitioner and they prayed for the nullification of the deed
of sale and the issuance of a new one in favor of their father.

ISSUES:

• Whether or not the subject property was part of the conjugal property of
Spouses Joseph Goyanko and Epifania dela Cruz.

• Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of herein petitioner was
void and inexistent.

HELD:

1) YES. The subject property was part of the conjugal property of the
Spouses. As it was acquired during the existence of a valid marriage
between Joseph Sr. and Epifania. Moreover, there was no decree of
dissolution of marriage, nor of their conjugal partnership.

2) YES.

• Supreme Court held that the contract of sale was null and void for
being contrary to morals and public policy. The sale was made by a
husband in favor of his concubine.
 • According to Article 1409: Contracts whose cause, object or
purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy are void and inexistent from the very beginning.

• Article 1352, NCC, also provides that: Contracts without cause or

with unlawful cause produce no effect whatsoever. The cause is
unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order
or pubic policy.

o Moreover, the sale of the property in favor of herein petitioner also fell
under the prohibition of sale of property between the spouses provided
for by Art. 1490, NCC. This provision also applies to common law
relationship.

o To rule otherwise would mean that “the condition of those who

incurred guilt would be better than those in legal union”

 This is so because if transfers and conveyances are

allowed between spouses during marriage would destroy
the system of conjugal partnership.

 This is also designed to prevent the exercise of undue

influence of one spouse over the other and to protect the
institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of family
law.

o Therefore, sale of the property made by Joseph Goyanko, Sr. in

favor of his common-law wife is null and void.