Agapay vs.

Palang
276 SCRA 341

Facts: Article 87; Miguel Palang contracted his first marriage to
CarlinaVallesterol in the church at Pangasinan. A few months after the
wedding, he l ef t t o work i n Hawai i . Out t hei r
uni on was born Hermi ni a Pal ang, respondent. Miguel returned to
the Philippines but he stayed in Zambales with his brother during the
entire duration of his year-long sojourn, not with his wife or child.
Miguel had also attempted to divorce Carlina in Hawaii. When he
returned for good, he refused to live with his wife and child.
When Mi guel was t hen 63 yrs. ol d, he cont ract ed hi s second
marriage with a nineteen year old Erlinda Agapay, petitioner. As evidenced
by deed of sale, both jointly purchased a parcel of agricultural land located
at Binalonan. A house and lot was likewise purchased allegedly by Erlinda
as the sole vendee. To settle and end a case filed by the first wife, Miguel
and Cornelia executed a Deed of Donation as a form of compromise
agreement. The parties agreed to donate their conjugal property
consisting of six parcels of land to their only child; Herminia
Palang.Miguel and Erlindas cohabitation produced a son and then
twoy e a r s l a t e r Mi g ue l d i e d. Th e r e a f t e r , Ca r l i na f i l e d a
c o mp l a i nt o f concubinage on the previous party. Respondents sought
to get back the rice land and the house and lot allegedly purchased by
Miguel during his cohabitation with petitioner. Petitioner contended
that she had already given her half of the rice land property to their son
and that the house and lot is her sole property having bought with her own
money. RTC affirmed in favor of the petitioner while CA reversed the said
decision.

Issue: Whet her or not pet i t i oner may own t he t wo
parcel s of l and acquired during the cohabitation of petitioner and
Miguel Palang.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the conveyance of the property was
not by way of sale but was a donation and therefore void. The transaction
was properly a donation made by Miguel to Erlinda, but one which
was clearly void and inexistent by express provision of law because
it was made between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at the
time of the donation.