ERLINDA A. AGAPAY vs. CARLINA (CORNELIA) V. PALANG and HERMINIA P.

DELA CRUZ

October 25, 2012 § Leave a comment

FACTS:
Miguel Palang contracted marriage with Carlina in Pangasinan on 1949. He left to work in Hawaii
a few months after the wedding. Their only child Herminia was born in May 1950. The trial court
found evident that as early as 1957, Miguel attempted to Divorce Carlina in Hawaii. When he
returned for good in 1972, he refused to lived with Carlina and stayed alone in a house in
Pozzorubio Pangasinan.

The 63 year old Miguel contracted a subsequent marriage with 19 year old Erlinda Agapay,
herein petitioner. 2 months earlier, they jointly purchased a parcel of agricultural land located at
Binalonan Pangasinan. A house and lot in the same place was likewise purchased. On the other
hand, Miguel and Carlina executed a Deed of Donation as a form of compromise agreement and
agreed to donate their conjugal property consisting of 6 parcels of land to their child Herminia.

Miguel and Erlinda’s cohabitation produced a son named Kristopher. In 1979, they were
convicted of concubinage upon Carlina’s complaint. 2 years later, Miguel died. Carlina and her
daughter instituted this case for recovery of ownership and possession with damages against
petitioner. They sought to get back the land and the house and lot located at Binalonan allegedly
purchase by Miguel during his cohabitation with petitioner. The lower court dismissed the
complaint but CA reversed the decision.

ISSUE: WON the agricultural land and the house and lot should be awarded in favor of Erlinda
Agapay.

HELD:
The sale of the riceland on May 17, 1973, was made in favor of Miguel and Erlinda. The provision
of law applicable here is Article 148 of the Family Code providing for cases of cohabitation when
a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each
other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. While
Miguel and Erlinda contracted marriage on July 15, 1973, said union was patently void because
the earlier marriage of Miguel and Carlina was still susbsisting and unaffected by the latter’s de
facto separation.

Under Article 148, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint
contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to
their respective contributions. It must be stressed that actual contribution is required by this
provision, in contrast to Article 147 which states that efforts in the care and maintenance of the
family and household, are regarded as contributions to the acquisition of common property by
one who has no salary or income or work or industry. If the actual contribution of the party is
not proved, there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares.
Erlinda failed to prove that she actually contributed money for the said property, so, the court
found no basis to justify her co-ownership with Miguel over the same. Consequently, the riceland
should, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, revert to the conjugal partnership property of
the deceased Miguel and private respondent Carlina Palang.

With respect with the house and lot, the transaction was properly a donation made by Miguel to
Erlinda, but one which was clearly void and inexistent by express provision of law because it was
made between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation, under
Article 739 of the Civil Code. Moreover, Article 87 of the Family Code expressly provides that the
prohibition against donations between spouses now applies to donations between persons living
together as husband and wife without a valid marriage

San Luis v. San Luis, G.R. No. 133743, February 6, 2007

FACTS:
Felicisimo T. San Luis was the former governor of the Province of Laguna. He contracted three
marriages. His first was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which were born six
children, but Virginia died on 1963. On May 1, 1968, He married Merry Lee Corwin, with whom
he had a son. But on October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a Complaint for
Divorce at State of Hawaii which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child
Custody of December 14, 1973. On June 20, 1974, He married Felicidad Sagalongos. He had no
children but lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death on
December 18, 1992. Felicidad sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and the
settlement of Felicisimo’s estate, filing a letter of administration before RTC Makati. Rodolfo filed
a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue and failure to state a cause of action.
Further claimed that Felicidad has no legal personality to file the petition because she only a
mistress of his father because at the time of death, he was still married to his second wife.
Felicidad presented the evidence that prove the marriage of Felicisimo to Merry lee had already
been dissolved. And she claimed that Felicisimo had the capacity to marry her by virtue of par. 2
Article 26 of the family code.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Felicidad my file for letters of administration over Felicisimo’s state.

HELD:
Yes, Felicidad has the legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration may
arise from her status that as a surviving wife of Felicisimo or his co-owner under the Art. 144 of
the Civil code.
Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry the respondent in 1974, the latter
has the legal personality to file the subject petition for letters of administration, as he may be
considered the co-owner of Felicisimo as regards that were acquired through their joint efforts
during their cohabitation.
DEC 3, 2019, 4:05 AM