B2013 1

Sales | Atty. Sanchez

Calimlim-Canullas vs. Fortun

Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas, petitioner, vs. Hon. Willelmo Fortun, Judge, Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan, Branch I, and Corazon Daguines, respondents.

Date: 22 June 1984

Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J.

Facts:

 Petitioner Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas was married to Fernando Canullas on 19

December 1962. They had 5 children. They live in a house standing on a land
(subject property) inherited by Fernando from his parents.
 In 1978, Fernando abandoned his family and began living in with respondent Corazon
Daguines. They were convicted of concubinage in 1981.
 In 1980, Fernando sold to Corazon the abovementioned house and lot (where his
legal family was residing) for Php.2,000.00. He indicated in the instrument of sale
that he also inherited the house from his parents.
 As Corazon was unable to take possession of the subject property, she filed a
complaint for quieting of title and damages against petitioner herein. In response,
Mercedes averred that the house in dispute, where she and her children were
residing, including the coconut trees in the property, were built and planted with
conjugal funds and her industry.
 Mercedes further averred that the sale between Corazon and Fernando was void for
her lack of consent to such, as the land and the improvements therein were conjugal
properties.
 TC/CFI: Corazon was lawful owner of land in question together with ½ of the house
therein. Upon reconsideration by Mercedes, the trial court held that: (1) Corazon
owns land and 10 coconut trees; and (2) sale between Corazon and Fernando of the
house and 3 coconut trees, as being conjugal property, was void. Hence, this petition.

Issue: WON the sale of the house and lot and the improvements therein between Corazon
and Fernando was valid.

Held: No. Decision set aside. Sale of the lot, house and improvements declared null and
void.

Ratio:
 The sale was null and void for being against morals and public policy. Fernando
executed the sale in favor of his concubine Corazon after abandoning his family and,
leaving the conjugal home where his wife and children lived and from where they
derived support. The sale in the case at bar undermines the stability of the family,
the basic social institution valued and protected by public policy.
 CC Art. 1409 (1) provides that
Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy; xxx
 CC Art 1352 also provides that
Art. 1352. Contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause, produce no effect
whatever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy. (1275a)
 B2013 2
Sales | Atty. Sanchez

 Further, selling of property between spouses is prohibited by law, save for some
exceptions1, as well as donations2 during marriage (subject to exceptions as well).
Such conveyances were seen to be disruptive of the system of conjugal partnership
and the prohibition of such also safeguards from the occurrence of exertion of undue
influence by one spouse over the other.
 Furthermore, the prohibitions abovementioned also applied to couples living as
husband and wife without the benefit of a marriage, otherwise, the Court declared,
“the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in
legal union.”3

1
Art. 1490. The husband and the wife cannot sell property to each other, except:
(1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage settlements;
or
(2) When there has been a judicial separation of property under Article 191 [FC
135,a]. (1458a)
2
The ponencia cited NCC Art. 133. It’s equivalent in the FC (which categorically prohibits
donation to common-law spouses) is
Art. 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between
the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the
spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibition
shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid
marriage. (133a)
3
This, the Court said, was the ruling in Buenaventura v Bautista and Matabuena v Cervates,
38 SCRA 284 (1971).