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 follos8 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 #,, #$%&, F2RN/NDO sold the sub4ect propert7 ith the house thereon to
D/01IN2S for the su' of P(,&&&.&&. In the docu'ent of sale, F2RN/NDO described
the house as -also inherited b7 'e fro' '7 deceased parents.-
1nable to ta6e possession of the lot and house, D/01IN2S initiated a co'plaint on
;une #$, #$%& for 9uietin! of title and da'a!es a!ainst M2R*2D2S. The latter
resisted and clai'ed that the house in dispute here she and her children ere
residin!, includin! the coconut trees on the land, ere built and planted ith con4u!al
funds and throu!h her industr7< that the sale of the land to!ether ith the house and
i'prove'ents to D/01IN2S as null and void because the7 are con4u!al properties
and she had not !iven her consent to the sale,
In its ori!inal 4ud!'ent, respondent *ourt principall7 declared D/01IN2S -as the
laful oner of the land in 9uestion as ell as the one3half => of the house erected on
said land.- 1pon reconsideration pra7ed for b7 M2R*2D2S, hoever, respondent
*ourt resolved8
?@2R2FOR2, the dispositive portion of the Decision of this *ourt, pro'ul!ated on
October ", #$%&, is hereb7 a'ended to read as follos8
=#> Declarin! plaintiff as the true and laful oner 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 beteen 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 ons the sa'e.
1
?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 onin! 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 oner 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 folloin! 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 onership 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 follos 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 unlaful 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 beteen spouses durin!
'arria!e are prohibited.
7
/nd this is so because if transfers or con conve7ances
beteen spouses ere alloed 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, otherise, -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")$, and cited in Matabuena vs.
Cervantes.
9
?e 9uote hereunder the pertinent dissertation on this point8
?e reach a different conclusion. ?hile /rt. #AA of the *ivil *ode considers as void a
donation beteen the spouses durin! the 'arria!e, polic7 considerations of the 'ost
e:i!ent character as en as the dictates of morality re9uire that the same prohibition
should apply to a commonlaw relationship.
/s announced in the outset of this opinion, a #$,B *ourt of /ppeals decision,
+uenaventura vs. +autista, ,& O0 A")$, interpretin! a si'ilar provision of the old *ivil
*ode spea6s une9uivocall7. If the polic7 of the la is, in the lan!ua!e of the opinion of
the then ;ustice ;.+.C. Re7es of that *ourt, 5to prohibit donations in favor of the other
consort and his descendants because of fear of undue influence and improper
pressure upon the donor, a pre4udice deepl7 rooted in our ancient la, ..., then there is
every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons livin! to!ether as husband
and wife without benefit of nuptials. For it is not to be doubted that assent to such
irre!ular connection for thirt7 7ears bespea6s !reater influence of one part7 over the
other, so that the dan!er that the la see6s to avoid is correspondin!l7 increased5.
Moreover, as pointed out b7 1lpian =in his lib A( ad Sabinu', fr. #>, -It ould not be 4ust
that such donations D should subsist, lest the conditions of those ho incurred !uilt
should turn out to be better.- So lon! as 'arria!e re'ains the cornerstone of our fa'il7
la, reason and 'oralit7 ali6e de'and that the disabilities attached to 'arria!e should
li6eise attach to concubina!e =2'phasis supplied>,
2
?@2R2FOR2, the Decision of respondent ;ud!e, dated October ", #$%&, 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.
3