MATABUENA VS CERVANTES

MARCH 31, 1971 | 38 SCRA 284 | J. FERNANDO | “What is within the spirit of the law”

FACTS:
 In 1956, herein appellant’s brother Felix Matabuena donated a piece of lot to his common-law spouse, appellee Petronila Cervantes.
 Felix and Petronila got married only in 1962 or six years after the deed of donation was executed.
 Five months later, or September 13, 1962, Felix died.
 Appellant Cornelia Matabuena, by reason of being the only sister and nearest collateral relative of the deceased, filed a claim over the property.
 The lower court of Sorsogon declared that the donation was valid as it was made at the time when Felix and Petronila were not yet spouses,
rendering Article 133 of the Civil Code inapplicable.

ISSUE
 Does a ban on donation between spouses during a marriage apply to a common-law relationship? (Yes)

RULING:
 The LOWER COURT DECISION dismissing the complaint is REVERSED. The questioned DONATION is declared VOID, with the rights of plaintiff
and defendant as pro indiviso heirs to the property in question recognized. The case is REMANDED to the LOWER COURT.

DOCTRINE:
 It is hardly necessary to add that even in the absence of the above pronouncement, any other conclusion cannot stand the test of scrutiny. It is a
fundamental principle in statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the law is as much a part of the law as what is written. It would
be to indict the framers of the Civil Code for a failure to apply a laudable rule to a situation, which in its essentials cannot be distinguished.
Moreover, if it is at all to be differentiated, the policy of the law which embodies a deeply-rooted notion of what is just and what is right would
be nullified if such irregular relationship instead of being visited with disabilities would be attended with benefits. Certainly a legal norm should
not be susceptible to such a reproach.

RATIO:
 Since the reason for the ban on donations between spouses during the marriage is to prevent the possibility of undue influence and improper
pressure being exerted by one spouse on the other, there is no reason why this prohibition shall not apply also to common-law relationships.
The court, however, said that the lack of the donation made by the deceased to Respondent does not necessarily mean that the Petitioner will
have exclusive rights to the disputed property because the relationship between Felix and Respondent were legitimated by marriage.