Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

CHING vs. GOYANKO, JR. GR No.

165879November 10, 2006


FACTS:
The respondents are the seven children out of the legal union of Joseph Goyanko,
Sr. and Epifania dela Cruz.
Respondents claim that in 1961, their parents acquired a real property in Cebu which
was first registered in the name of their aunt as their parents was still Chinese
citizens this time.
In May, 1993, their aunt executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property
in favor of their father. In turn, on October 1993, respondents father executed a Deed
of Absolute Sale in favor of the petitioner, Maria Ching, his common-law wife.
After Goyanko Sr.s death, the respondents discovered that the property had been
transferred to the name of the petitioner.
Thus, the respondents filed a Complaint for the recovery of the property and
damages against petitioner and they prayed for the nullification of the deed of sale
and the issuance of a new one in favor of their father.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the subject property was part of the conjugal property of
Spouses Joseph Goyanko and Epifania dela Cruz.
2. Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of herein petitioner was void
and inexistent.
HELD:
1)YES. The subject property was part of the conjugal property of the spouses,
as it was acquired during the existence of a valid marriage between Joseph Sr.
and Epifania. Moreover, there was no decree of dissolution of marriage, nor of
their conjugal partnership.

2) YES. Supreme Court held that the contract of sale was null and void for
being contrary to morals and public policy. The sale was made by a husband
in favor of his concubine.

According to Article 1409: Contracts whose cause, object or purpose is
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy are void
and inexistent from the very beginning.
Article 1352, NCC, also provides that: Contracts without cause or with
unlawful cause produce no effect whatsoever. The cause is unlawful if it is
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or pubic policy.

Moreover, the sale of the property in favor of herein petitioner also fell under
the prohibition of sale of property between the spouses provided for by Art.
1490, NCC. This provision also applies to common law relationship.

To rule otherwise would mean that the condition of those who incurred guilt
would be better than those in legal union
This is so because if transfers and conveyances are allowed between spouses
during marriage would destroy the system of conjugal partnership.

This is also designed to prevent the exercise of undue influence of one spouse
over the other and to protect the institution of marriage, which is the
cornerstone of family law.

Sale of the property made by Joseph Goyanko, Sr. infavor of his common-law
wife is null and void

Decision:
the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.