You are on page 1of 1

Agapayvs.

Agapay Topic:PropertyRegimeof Unionswithoutmarriage:UnionsunderFC 148 FACTS: Miguel Palang contracted his first marriage in 1949 with Carlina/Cornelia Vallesterol. A few months later, Miguel left to work in Hawaii. In 1954, Miguel returned for a vacation but never stayed with his wife and child. In 1957, Miguel had attempted to divorce Carlina in Hawaii. When he returned to the Philippines in 1972 for good, he refused to live with Carlina and his son. In 1973, Miguel (63 years old) contracted a second marriage with Erlinda Agapay (19 years old). Two months before said marriage, Miguel and Erlinda jointly purchased a piece of agricultural land. In September 1975, a house and lot was purchased by Erlinda allegedly as sole vendee. In October 1975, Miguel and Carlina executed a Deed of Donation as a form of compromise agreement to settle case previously filed by Carlina. In said document, the parties agreed to donate their conjugal

property to their only child, Herminia.


Miguel and Erlinda had a son, Kristopher, born 1977. Erlinda and Miguel were convicted of concubinage in 1979.

In 1981, Miguel died, and Carlina and Herminia filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession of riceland and house and lot that were allegedly purchased by Miguel during his cohabitation with Erlinda. Erlinda alleged that she had already donated her half of the riceland property to Kristopher, and that the house and lot is her sole property having bought it with her own money. RTC ruled in favor of 2nd wife Erlinda. CA ruled in favor of 1st wife Carlina. ISSUES:WON the properties in dispute (piece of agricultural land and house and lot) belong to the conjugal property of Miguel and Carlina (1st wife) and is therefore subject to reconveyance? ( YES the properties in dispute belong to the conjugal property. CA decision affirmed.) RATIO: 1. The deeds of sale of the properties should go to Carlina and Herminia
* Deeds of conveyance were valid * Applicableprovisionof law is Art. 148 of the FamilyCode:propertyregimefor whena manand a womanwho arent capacitatedto marrycohabitateor live undera void marriage o Migueland Erlindamarriedin 1973, but their unionwasvoid becauseMiguelwasstill marriedto Carlina. o Art. 148: only propertiesacquiredby boththroughactual joint contributionof money,propertyor industry shall be ownedby themin common,in proportionto their respectivecontributions.If a partyscontributionisnt proven,therewill be no co- ownershipandno presumptionof equal shares. 2. Erlinda tried to establish by her testimony that she is engaged in the business of buy and sell and had a sari-sari store but failed to show that she actually contributed money to buy the riceland. On the date of conveyance, she was only around 20 years old and Miguel was already 64 and a pensioner of the U.S. Government. It is unrealistic to conclude that she contributed P3,750.00 as her share in the purchase price of property. She now claims that the riceland was bought 2 months. before they actually cohabited. She intended to exclude their case from the operation of Article 148. No proof that the riceland was purchased even before they started living together. Even assuming that the property was bought before cohabitation, the rules of co-ownership would still apply and proof of actual contribution would still be essential. 3. Erlinda allegedly bought it for PhP20,000, but the notary public testified that Miguel provided the money and simply asked that Erlinda alone be placed as vendee. This makes it a donation, which is void under Art. 739 of the Civil Code since it was made by persons guilty of concubinage. Art. 87 also expressly provides that donations between spouses now also applies to donations between those who cohabitate as spouses.

You might also like