Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

L-57499 June 22, 1984 MERCEDES CALIMLIM- CANULLAS, petitioner, vs. ON. !ILLELMO "ORTUN, Ju#$e, Cou%& o' "(%)& (n)&*n+e o' P*n$*)(n*n, ,%*n+- I, *n# CORA.ON DAGUINES, respondents. Fernandez Law Offices for petitioner. Francisco Pulido for respondents.

MELENCIO- ERRERA, J.: Petition for Revie on certiorari assailin! the Decision, dated October ", #$%&, and the Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration, dated Nove'ber (), #$%&, of the then *ourt of First Instance of Pan!asinan, +ranch I, in *ivil *ase No. #,"(& entitled -*ora.on D/01IN2S vs. M2R*2D2S *ali'li'3*anullas,upholdin! the sale of a parcel of land in favor of D/01IN2S but not of the con4u!al house thereon5 The bac6!round facts 'a7 be su''ari.ed as follo s8 Petitioner M2R*2D2S *ali'li'3*anullas and F2RN/NDO *anullas ere 'arried on Dece'ber #$, #$"(. The7 be!ot five children. The7 lived in a s'all house on the residential land in 9uestion ith an area of appro:i'atel7 %$# s9uare 'eters, located at +acabac, +u!allon, Pan!asinan. /fter F2RN/NDO5s father died in #$",, F2RN/NDO inherited the land. In #$)%, F2RN/NDO abandoned his fa'il7 and as livin! ith private respondent *ora.on D/01IN2S. Durin! the pendenc7 of this appeal, the7 ere convicted of concubina!e in a 4ud!'ent rendered on October (), #$%# b7 the then *ourt of First Instance of Pan!asinan, +ranch II, hich 4ud!'ent has beco'e final.

On /pril #,, #$%&, F2RN/NDO sold the sub4ect propert7 ith the house thereon to D/01IN2S for the su' of P(,&&&.&&. In the docu'ent of sale, F2RN/NDO described the house as -also inherited b7 'e fro' '7 deceased parents.1nable to ta6e possession of the lot and house, D/01IN2S initiated a co'plaint on ;une #$, #$%& for 9uietin! of title and da'a!es a!ainst M2R*2D2S. The latter resisted and clai'ed that the house in dispute here she and her children ere residin!, includin! the coconut trees on the land, ere built and planted ith con4u!al funds and throu!h her industr7< that the sale of the land to!ether ith the house and i'prove'ents to D/01IN2S as null and void because the7 are con4u!al properties and she had not !iven her consent to the sale, In its ori!inal 4ud!'ent, respondent *ourt principall7 declared D/01IN2S -as the la ful o ner of the land in 9uestion as ell as the one3half => of the house erected on said land.- 1pon reconsideration pra7ed for b7 M2R*2D2S, ho ever, respondent *ourt resolved8 ?@2R2FOR2, the dispositive portion of the Decision of this *ourt, pro'ul!ated on October ", #$%&, is hereb7 a'ended to read as follo s8 =#> Declarin! plaintiff as the true and la ful o ner of the land in 9uestion and the #& coconut trees< =(> Declarin! as null and void the sale of the con4u!al house to plaintiff on /pril #,, #$%& =2:hibit /> includin! the A coconut trees and other crops planted durin! the con4u!al relation bet een Fernando *anullas =vendor> and his le!iti'ate ife, herein defendant Mercedes *ali'li'3 *anullas< ::: ::: ::: The issues posed for resolution are =#> hether or not the construction of a con4u!al house on the e:clusive propert7 of the husband ipso facto !ave the land the character of con4u!al propert7< and =(> hether or not the sale of the lot to!ether ith the house and i'prove'ents thereon as valid under the circu'stances surroundin! the transaction. The deter'ination of the first issue revolves around the

interpretation to be !iven to the second para!raph of /rticle #,% of the *ivil *ode, hich reads8 ::: ::: ::: +uildin!s constructed at the e:pense of the partnership durin! the 'arria!e on land belon!in! to one of the spouses also pertain to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be rei'bursed to the spouse ho o ns the sa'e. ?e hold that pursuant to the fore!oin! provision both the land and the buildin! belon! to the con4u!al partnership but the con4u!al partnership is indebted to the husband for the value of the land. The spouse o nin! the lot beco'es a creditor of the con4u!al partnership for the value of the lot, 1 hich value ould be rei'bursed at the li9uidation of the con4u!al partnership. 2 In his co''entar7 on the correspondin! provision in the Spanish *ivil *ode =/rt. #B&B>, Manresa stated8 2l articulo ca'bia la doctrine< los edificios construidos durante el 'atri'onio en suelo propio de uno de los con4u!es son !ananciales, abonandose el valor del suelo al con4 u!e a 9uien pertene.ca. It is true that in the case of Maramba vs. Lozano, / relied upon b7 respondent ;ud!e, it as held that the land belon!in! to one of the spouses, upon hich the spouses have built a house, beco'es con4u!al propert7 onl7 hen the con4u!al partnership is li9uidated and inde'nit7 paid to the o ner of the land. ?e believe that the better rule is that enunciated b7 Mr. ;ustice ;.+.C. Re7es in Padilla vs. Paterno, A S*R/ ")%, "$# =#$"#>, here the follo in! as e:plained8 /s to the above properties, their conversion fro' paraphernal to con4u!al assets should be dee'ed to retroact to the ti'e the con4u!al buildin!s ere first constructed thereon or at the ver7 latest, to the ti'e i''ediatel7 before the death of Narciso /. Padilla that ended the con4u!al partnership. The7 can not be considered to have beco'e con4u!al propert7 onl7 as of the ti'e their values ere paid to the estate of the ido *oncepcion Paterno because b7 that ti'e the con4u!al partnership no lon!er e:isted and it could not ac9uire the o nership of said properties. The ac9uisition b7 the partnership of these properties as, under

the #$BA decision, sub4ect to the suspensive condition that their values ould be rei'bursed to the ido at the li9uidation of the con4u!al partnership< once paid, the effects of the fulfill'ent of the condition should be dee'ed to retroact to the date the obli!ation as constituted =/rt. ##%), Ne *ivil *ode> ... The fore!oin! pre'ises considered, it follo s that F2RN/NDO could not have alienated the house and lot to D/01IN2S since M2R*2D2S had not !iven her consent to said sale. 4 /nent the second issue, e find that the contract of sale as null and void for bein! contrar7 to 'orals and public polic7. The sale as 'ade b7 a husband in favor of a concubine after he had abandoned his fa'il7 and left the con4u!al ho'e here his ife and children lived and fro' hence the7 derived their support. That sale as subversive of the stabilit7 of the fa'il7, a basic social institution hich public polic7 cherishes and protects. 5 /rticle #B&$ of the *ivil *ode states inter alia that8 contracts hose cause, ob4ect, or purpose is contrar7 to la , 'orals, !ood custo's, public order, or public polic7 are void and ine:istent fro' the ver7 be!innin!. /rticle #A,( also provides that8 -*ontracts ithout cause, or ith unlawful cause, produce no effect whatsoever. The cause is unla ful if it is contrar7 to la , 'orals, !ood custo's, public order, or public polic7./dditionall7, the la e'phaticall7 prohibits the spouses fro' sellin! propert7 to each other sub4ect to certain e:ceptions. 0 Si'ilarl7, donations bet een spouses durin! 'arria!e are prohibited. 7 /nd this is so because if transfers or con conve7ances bet een spouses ere allo ed durin! 'arria!e, that ould destro7 the s7ste' of con4u!al partnership, a basic polic7 in civil la . It as also desi!ned to prevent the e:ercise of undue influence b7 one spouse over the other, 8 as ell as to protect the institution of 'arria!e, hich is the cornerstone of fa'il7 la . The prohibitions appl7 to a couple livin! as husband and ife ithout benefit of 'arria!e, other ise, -the condition of those ho incurred !uilt ould turn out to be better than those in le!al union.- Those provisions are dictated b7 public interest and their criterion 'ust be i'posed upon the i! of the parties. That as the rulin! in Buenaventura vs. Bautista, also penned b7 ;ustice ;+C Re7es =*/> ,& O.0. A")$, and cited in Matabuena vs. Cervantes. 9 ?e

9uote hereunder the pertinent dissertation on this point8 ?e reach a different conclusion. ?hile /rt. #AA of the *ivil *ode considers as void a donation bet een the spouses durin! the 'arria!e, polic7 considerations of the 'ost e:i!ent character as en as the dictates of morality re9uire that the same prohibition should apply to a common law relationship. /s announced in the outset of this opinion, a #$,B *ourt of /ppeals decision, +uenaventura vs. +autista, ,& O0 A")$, interpretin! a si'ilar provision of the old *ivil *ode spea6s une9uivocall7. If the polic7 of the la is, in the lan!ua!e of the opinion of the then ;ustice ;.+.C. Re7es of that *ourt, 5to prohibit donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue influence and improper pressure upon the donor, a pre4udice deepl7 rooted in our ancient la , ..., then there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons livin! to!ether as husband and wife without benefit of nuptials. For it is not to be doubted that assent to such irre!ular connection for thirt7 7ears bespea6s !reater influence of one part7 over the other, so that the dan!er that the la see6s to avoid is correspondin!l7 increased5. Moreover, as pointed out b7 1lpian =in his lib A( ad Sabinu', fr. #>, -It ould not be 4ust that such donations D should subsist, lest the conditions of those ho incurred !uilt should turn out to be better.- So lon! as 'arria!e re'ains the cornerstone of our fa'il7 la , reason and 'oralit7 ali6e de'and that the disabilities attached to 'arria!e should li6e ise attach to concubina!e =2'phasis supplied>, ?@2R2FOR2, the Decision of respondent ;ud!e, dated October ", #$%&, and his Resolution of Nove'ber (), #$%& on petitioner5s Motion for Reconsideration, are hereb7 set aside and the sale of the lot, house and i'prove'ents in 9uestion, is hereb7 declared null and void. No costs. SO ORD2R2D. "eehan#ee $Chairman%, Plana, &elova, 'utierrez, (r., and )e la Fuente, ((., concur.