Agapay vs Palang Facts: Miguel Palang and Carlina Palang (respondent) got married on July 16, 1949.

On May 12, 1950, their marriage was blessed with the birth of their only child, Herminia who is also a respondent in the case at bar. On July 15, 1973, Miguel who was then 63 years old, contracted his second marriage with Erlinda Agapay, herein petitioner. Two months before said marriage, the two purchased a piece of Riceland to which a transfer certificate of title was issued in their names. On Sept 23, 1975, a house a lot was allegedly bought by petitioner as the sole vendee wherein a TCT was also issued in her name. Four years after their marriage, Miguel and Erlinda had a son, Kristoper Palang. However, in 1979 petitioner and Miguel were convicted of concubinage upon Carlinas complaint. Two years after, Miguel died. On July 11, 1981 Respondents (Carlina and Hermina Palang) instituted an action for recovery of ownership and possession with damages against petitioner. The property subjected is the Riceland and the house and lot allegedly purchased by Miguel during his cohabitation with petitioner. RTC ruled in favor of Erlinda while the CA reversed the trial courts decision and ruled in favor of Carlina and Herminia. Hence this petition. Issue: Who should own the questioned properties and what rule should govern such ownership Held: The Riceland should revert to the conjugal partnership property of the deceased and private respondent Carlina Palang. The sale of the Riceland was made in favor of Miguel and Erlinda as provided in Art 148 of the family code. Wherein, when a man and a woman cohabited under void bigamous marriage just like in the case at bar, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common proportion to their respective contribution. If the actual contribution is not proved, there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares. Since petitioner failed to prove that she contributed money to the purchase price of the Riceland, she cannot claim co-ownership with Miguel over such property. With respect to the house and lot, Erlinda allegedly bought the same at P20,000 when she was just 22 years old. The testimony of the notary public who prepared the deed of conveyance for the property reveals the falsehood of this claim. Hence the real buyer was Miguel and the transaction was properly a donation. A donation made between persons guilty of adultery and concubinage at the time of donation shall be void and inexistent as provided in Art 739 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, as provided in Art 87 of the Family Code, donations between husband and wife as well as parties who live together as husband and wife without a valid marriage is prohibited. Hence, the house and lot should also accrue to the conjugal partnership property of the deceased and private respondent.