Agapay vs Palang

Agapay vs. Palang

GR No. 116668, July 28, 1997

FACTS:

Miguel Palang contracted marriage with Carlina in Pangasinan on 1949.  He left to work in Hawaii a few months after the wedding.  Their only child Herminia was born in May 1950.  The trial court found evident that as early as 1957, Miguel attempted to Divorce Carlina in Hawaii.  When he returned for good in 1972, he refused to lived with Carlina and stayed alone in a house in Pozzorubio Pangasinan.

The 63 year old Miguel contracted a subsequent marriage with 19 year old Erlinda Agapay, herein petitioner.  2 months earlier, they jointly purchased a parcel of agricultural land located at Binalonan Pangasinan.  A house and lot in the same place was likewise purchased.  On the other hand, Miguel and Carlina executed a Deed of Donation as a form of compromise agreement and agreed to donate their conjugal property consisting of 6 parcels of land to their child Herminia.

Miguel and Erlinda’s cohabitation produced a son named Kristopher.  In 1979, they were convicted of concubinage upon Carlina’s complaint.  2 years later, Miguel died.  Carlina and her daughter instituted this case for recovery of ownership and possession with damages against petitioner.  They sought to get back the land and the house and lot located at Binalonan allegedly purchase by Miguel during his cohabitation with petitioner.  The lower court dismissed the complaint but CA reversed the decision.

ISSUE: Whether the agricultural land and the house and lot should be awarded in favor of Erlinda Agapay.

HELD:

The sale of the riceland on May 17, 1973, was made in favor of Miguel and Erlinda.  However, their marriage is void because of the subsisting marriage with Carlina.  Only the properties acquired by both parties through their actual joint contribution shall be owned by them in proportion to their respective contributions.  It is required that there be an actual contribution.  If actual contribution is not proved, there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares.

Erlinda established in her testimony that she was engaged in the business of buy and sell and had a sari-sari store.  However, she failed to persuade the court that she actually contributed money to but the subjected riceland.  When the land was acquired, she was only around 20 years old compared to Miguel who was already 64 years old and a pensioner of the US Government.  Considering his youthfulness, its unrealistic how she could have contributed the P3,750 as her share.  Thus, the court finds no basis to justify the co-ownership with Miguel over the same.  Hence, the Riceland should, as correctly held by CA, revert to the conjugal partnership property of the deceased and Carlina.

It is immaterial that Miguel and Carlina previously agreed to donate their conjugal property in favor of Herminia.  Separation of property between spouses during the marriage shall not take place except by judicial order or without judicial conferment when there is an express stipulation in the marriage settlements.  The judgment resulted from the compromise was not specifically for separation of property and should not be so inferred.

With respect to the house and lot, Atty Sagun, notary public who prepared the deed of conveyance for the property revealed the falshood of Erlinda’s claim that she bought such property for P20,000 when she was 22 years old.  The lawyer testified that Miguel provided the money for the purchase price and directed Erlinda’s name alone be placed as the vendee.

The transaction made by Miguel to Erlinda was properly a donation and which was clearly void and inexistent by express provision of the law because it was made between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation.  Moreover, Article 87 of the Family Code, expressly provides that the prohibition against donation between spouses now applies to donations between persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, for otherwise, the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union.