Digest Author: Dodot

Calimlim-Canullas v. Fortun (1984) FAMILY CODE Petition: Certiorari [Review decision of Pangasinan CFI] Petitioner: Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas Respondents: Willelmo Fortun Ponente: Melencio-Herrera Date: 22 Jun 1984 Facts: Art. 120. Xxx xxx xxx When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement. In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. (158a) Issues: 1. Did the construction of a conjugal house on the exclusive property of the husband ipso facto give the land the character of conjugal property? [YES] Was the sale of the lot, together with the improvements thereon, valid? [NO]

19 Dec 1962 Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas and Fernando Canullas, married o 5 Children o Lived in a small house, constructed after marriage, on the disputed lot At the start of the marriage, had belonged to Fernandos father After the death of his father, Fernando inherited the lot 1978 Fernando abandoned family; lived with Corazon Daguines o Eventually convicted of concubinage [during pendency of appeal] 15 Apr 1980 Fernando sold disputed lot, including the house built on it, to Corazon for P 2,000 o In the documents of sale, house described as also inherited by Fernando 19 Jun 1980 Corazon initiated complaint against Mercedes [quieting of title and damages] o MERCEDES: House, including coconut trees, built using conjugal funds Sale of house and lot VOID, since Mercedes had not given her consent to the selling of conjugal properties Pangasinan CFI initially decided in favor of Corazon: declared that she was the rightful owner of the land, and of of the house built on the land o Upon appeal by Mercedes, the trial court partially reversed its previous decision Sale of the house [and some coconut trees those planted after marriage] was NULL and VOID Corazon the true and lawful owner of the land [and some coconut trees]

2.

Ruling/Ratio: 1. YES. Pursuant to Art. 158 of the Civil Code, both the land and the building belong to the conjugal partnership. But the conjugal partnership is indebted to the husband for the value of the land [reimbursable upon liquidation of the conjugal partnership] Justice JBL Reyes (Padilla v. Paterno): Conversion from paraphernal to conjugal assets should be deemed to retroact to the time the conjugal buildings were first constructed thereon Fernando could, thus, not have alienated the H&L to Corazon since Mercedes had not given her consent to the sale. Sale NULL and VOID, for being contrary to morals and public policy Made by a husband in favor of his concubine after he had abandoned his family Sale subversive of the stability of the family [institution protected by public policy] Art. 1409, CC: contracts whose cause, object, or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy VOID and INEXISTENT from the very beginning. Art. 1352, CC: Contracts without cause or with wrongful cause, produce no effect whatsoever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law,

Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts: CIVIL CODE [NOTE: NO LONGER GOOD LAW; status of property w/ improvements contingent on certain conditions see the relevant Family Code provision] Art. 158. Improvements, whether for utility or adornment, made on the separate property of the spouses through advancements from the partnership or through the industry of either the husband or the wife, belong to the conjugal partnership. Buildings constructed, at the expense of the partnership, during the marriage on land belonging to one of the spouses, also pertain to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the same. (1404a) Compare with

2.

NO.

Digest Author: Dodot

morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. ALSO, law prohibits spouses from selling property to each other [w/ only some exceptions] applicable to couples living as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage

Opinions: No separate opinions Disposition: Decision and Resolution of respondent Judge set aside. Sale of lot and improvements thereon declared null and void. Principles: Conjugal Partnership of Gains Rules on Improvement