1351 Facts:

Conchita Liguez vs. CA, Maria de Lopez, et al

Petitioner Liguez filed a complaint against the widow and heirs of the late Salvador Lopez to recover a parcel of land. Liguez claims to be its legal owner, pursuant to a deed of donation of said land, executed in her favor by Salvador in 1943. Liguez was 16 yrs old at the time. The respondents rebutted that the donation was null and void for having an illicit cause or consideration, which was the petitioners entering into marital relations with Salvador P. Lopez, a married man; and that the property had been adjudicated to the respondents as heirs of Lopez by the court of First Instance, since 1949. The deed of donation recites: That the DONOR, Salvador P. Lopez, for and in the consideration of his love and affection for the said DONEE, Conchita Liguez, and also for the good and valuable services rendered to the DONOR by the DONEE, does by these presents, voluntarily give grant and donate to the said donee, etc. It was found that Salvador made the donation in view of his desire to have sexual relations with Liguez, that her parents would not allow him to cohabit with her unless he donated the land in question. Liguez argues that the cause of the contract was the liberality of Salvador and that his motive was different from such cause and, therefore, the donation was valid. She relies on Art. 1274 of the old CC: "in contracts of pure beneficence the consideration is the liberality of the donor". Issue: WON the cause is illicit. Ruling: YES Article 1351. The particular motives of the parties in entering into a contract are different from the cause thereof. While there is a distinction between the motive and the cause, it has been held that the motive may be regarded as such when it predetermines the purpose of the contract. In the present case, it is scarcely disputable that Lopez would not have conveyed the property in question had he known that appellant would refuse to cohabit with him; so that the cohabitation was an implied condition to the donation, and being unlawful, necessarily tainted the donation itself. [However, the Court held that the defendants were barred from pleading the illegality of the contract for the reason that, had Salvador lived, he would be barred to do the same since a party to an illegal contract who is guilty of such illegality, will not be aided by the law and cannot therefore plead the illegality as a cause of action or as a defense. The donation made by the husband in contravention of law is not void in its entirety, but only in so far as it prejudices the interest of the wife and the heirs.]