Chingv.

Goyanko
G.R. No. 165879, November 10, 2006
Petitioner: Maria Ching
Respondent: Joseph Goyanko Jr.
Void donations by the spouses – donations during the marriage
Facts: in 1947, Joseph Goyanko Sr. and Epifania were married and begot the
respondents in this case. Respondents claim that in 1961, their parents acquired a
property located in Cebu City, but as they were Chinese citizens at the time, the
property was registered in the name of their aunt Sulpicia. In 1993, Sulpicia
executed a DOS in favor of the respondents’ father Goyanko who in turn
executed a DOS in favor of his common-law-wife. The TCT was issued in her
name. It was only after respondents’ father died in 1996, that they discovered
that he had transferred ownership of the land to his common-law wife. After
having the DOS verified by the PNP Crime Lab, the signature of their father was
found to be forged.
(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy;
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
(3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction;
(4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
(5) Those which contemplate an impossible service;
(6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal object
of the contract cannot be ascertained;
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of
illegality be waived.
Art. 1490. The husband and wife cannot sell property to each other, except:
(1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage
settlements; or
(2) When there has been a judicial separation of property under Article 191.

RTC: Respondents thus filed with RTC a complaint for recovery of property The sale was made by a husband in favor of a concubine after he had abandoned
against petitioner, praying for nullification of DOS and TCT. In her defense, his family and left the conjugal home where his wife and children lived and from
Ching claimed she is the actual owner of the property as it was purchased with whence they derived their support. The sale was subversive of the stability of the
her own funds. To disprove the forgery theory, she presented the notary public as family, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. The
witness who testified that Goyanko personally appeared to sign the document. law emphatically prohibits spouses from selling or donating property to each
RTC dismissed the complaint against petitioner for lack of merit. It further ruled other, subject to certain exceptions because it would destroy the system of
that the subject property was not part of the conjugal property of the original conjugal partnership, a basic policy in civil law. The prohibition was designed to
spouses as it was sold to Maria Ching who is the registered owner of the prevent the exercise of undue influence by one spouse over the other and is
property. likewise applicable even to common-law relationships otherwise, the condition
of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union.
CA: Respondents appealed to the CA which reversed the RTC’s ruling, declaring
null and void the DOS. It held thath te subject tproperty was acquired during the
existence of a valid marriage between Goyanko Sr. and Epifania, thus presumed
to belong to the conjugal partnership and there was no proof to overcome this
presumption. Even though Goyanko Sr. and his legit wife were separated in fact,
there was no judicial decree that dissolved the marriage, nor their conjugal
partnership. Goyanko Sr. was then unlawfully cohabiting with his mistress,
Maria Ching as common-law husband and wife. Under Art. 1352 of NCC,
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 public policy. Thus, the DOS in favor of Maria Ching is null and void for
being contrary to public policy.

Issue: W/N the DOS Goyanko executed in favor of his common-law wife is
valid?

Held: NO. Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the
beginning: