Liguez v.

CA

Dec. 18, 1957 | Reyes, JBL, J. | Void contracts

PETITIONER: Conchita Liguez
RESPONDENT: CA, Maria Ngo, et al.
SUMMARY: Through a deed of donation, Salvador Lopez donated a parcel of land to Conchita Liguez, who was then 16. In an action
commenced by Conchita to recover the same, the CA found that the deed was null and void for having an illegal causa and for Salvadors lack of
right to donate conjugal property. This was based upon the finding that Salvador donated the land in order to cohabit with and have sexual
relations with Conchita. The CA also rejected the claim based on the in pari delicto rule. The SC found that the conveyance was indeed predicated
on an illegal causa. However, the pari delicto rule does not apply since at the time of the donation, Salvador was a man advanced in years and
Conchita was only 16. Furthermore, Salvadors forced heirs are barred from invoking the illegality of the causa, and are thereby only entitled to a
declaration of the donation as inofficious.
DOCTRINE: The rule that parties to an illegal contract, if equally guilty, will not be aided by the law but will both be left where it finds them, has
been interpreted by this Court as barring the party from pleading the illegality of the bargain either as a cause of action or as a defense.

A donation with illegal causa may produce effects under certain circumstances where the parties are not of equal guilt.

FACTS: of the widow Maria Ngo in the conjugal partnership or the

1. Conchita Liguez filed a complaint against the widow and
heirs of Salvador Lopez to recover a parcel of 51.84
hectares of land in Davao. She averred to be its legal owner,
pursuant to a deed of donation executed in her favor by
Salvador.
2. At the time the deed was executed, Conchita was 16. She
had also been living with Salvadors parents for barely a
month.
3. The deed of donation recites that the donor Salvador, for
and in consideration of his love and affection for Conchita,
and also for the good and valuable services rendered to
[Salvador] by [Conchita], does by these presents,
voluntarily give, grant and donate
4. The donation was made in view of Salvadors desire to have
sexual relations with Conchita. Furthermore, Conchitas
parents would not allow Conchita to live with him unless he
first donated the subject land.
5. The donated land originally belonged to the conjugal
partnership of Salvador and his wife, Maria Ngo.
6. CA: The deed of donation was inoperative, and null and
void because:
a. Lopez had no right to donate conjugal property
to Conchita;
b. The donation was tainted with illegal causa or
consideration.
7. The CA also rejected Conchitas claim based on the rule in
pari delicto non oritur actio, as embodied in Art. 1306 of
the 1889 Civil Code (as reproduced in Art. 1412 in the new
Civil Code).
8. Conchita: under Art. 1274 (of the 1889 Civil Code), in
contracts of pure beneficence the consideration is the
liberality of the donor, and liberality per se can never be
illegal, since it is neither against law or morals or public
policy.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the conveyance was predicated on illegal causa YES
2. WON the in pari delicto rule applies NO
3. WON the alienation of conjugal property was void only
insofar as it prejudices Maria Ngo
RULING: Decisions appealed from reversed and set aside.
Conchita Liguez entitled to so much of the donated property as
may be found, upon proper liquidation, not to prejudice the share
legitimes of Salvadors forced heirs. The records are remanded to
the court of origin for further proceedings.
RATIO:
1. Under the cited Art. 1274, liberality of the donor is deemed
causa only in contracts that are of pure beneficence, or
contracts designed solely and exclusively to procure the
welfare of the beneficiary, without any intent of
producing any satisfaction for the donor.
2. In this case, Salvador was not moved exclusively by the
desire to benefit Conchita, but also to secure her cohabiting
with him, and so that he could gratify his sexual impulses.
This is clear from Salvadors confession to two witnesses
that he was in love with her.
3. Lopez would not have conveyed the property in question had
he known that Conchita would refuse to cohabit with him.
The cohabitation was an implied condition to the donation
and being unlawful, necessarily tainted the donation.
4. Therefore, the donation was but one part of an onerous
transaction (with Conchitas parents) that must be viewed in
its totality.
5. The CA erred in applying the pari delicto rule. The facts
are more suggestive of seduction than of immoral bargaining.
a. It cannot be said that both parties had equal
guilt. Salvador was a man advanced in years
and mature experience, and Conchita was only
16 when the donation was made.
b. The CA did not find that she was fully aware of
the terms of the bargain entered into by her
parents.
c. Her acceptance of the deed does not imply
knowledge of conditions and terms not set forth
therein.
d. Witnesses testified that it was Conchitas
parents who insisted on the donation.
6. The rule that parties to an illegal contract, if equally
guilty, will not be aided by the law but will both be left
where it finds them, has been interpreted by this Court as
barring the party from pleading the illegality of the
bargain either as a cause of action or as a defense. But
where the plaintiff can establish a cause of action without
exposing its illegality, the vice does not affect the right to
recover.
7. Applied to the case: Conchita seeks recovery of the land
 based on the strength of a donation regular on its face. To
defeat its effect, the heirs must plead and prove that the same
is illegal, which they cannot do, since Lopez himself, if
living, would be barred from setting up that plea.
8. Lopez could not donate the entirety of the property to the
prejudice of his wife. The donation is void only insofar as
it prejudices the interest of his wife.
a. FC 1409: The conjugal partnership can be charged
anything given or promised by the husband in order to
obtain employment for his children, or give them a
profession.
b. 1415: The husband may dispose of the property of the
conjugal partnership for purposes in Art. 1409.
c. 1413: The husband may for a valuable consideration
alienate and encumber the property of the conjugal
partnership without the consent of the wife.
9. To determine the prejudice to the widow, it must be shown
that the value of her share in the property donated cannot be
paid out of the husbands share of the community profits.
However, the requisite data are not available to the court.
The records need to be remanded to the court of origin that
settled Salvadors estate.
10. Salvadors forced heirs cannot invoke the illegality of the
donation, but are entitled to have the donation set aside
insofar as inofficious, based on their rights to a legitime out
of his estate. However, only the court of origin has the
requisite data to determine whether or not it is inofficious.
11. Re: improvements in the land governed by rules of
accession and possession in good faith, since Maria and
Salvadors heirs were unaware of the donation to Conchita
when the improvements were made.
12. Re: laches Conchita only enforced her right as donee in
1951. But the Court highlights that in 1943, she was still
sixteen; she only reached the age of majority in 1948. Her
action 1951 was only delayed three years. Furthermore, she
couldnt have intervened in Salvadors estate proceedings
because she was a minor for its great part. Also, the donation
did not make her a creditor of the estate.
13. A donation with illegal causa may produce effects under
certain circumstances where the parties are not of equal
guilt.