G.R.

L-11240, December 18, 1957

Conchita LIGUEZ, petitioner
VS.
Honorable Court of Appeals, Maria Ngo de Lopez, et al., respondents

Facts:

A complaint was filed by Conchita Liguez, plaintiff, against the widow and heirs of the late Salvador
P. Lopez to recover a parcel of land pursuant to a deed of donation of said land executed in her favor
by the late owner. The donated land originally belonged to the conjugal partnership of Lopez and his
wife, Maria Ngo. The defense interposed that the donation was null and void for having an illicit
causa or consideration, which was plaintiff's entering into marital relations with Salvador P. Lopez, a
married man. At the time of the donation, plaintiff was a minor, only 16 years of age. The donation
was made in view of the desire of Lopez, a man of mature years, to have sexual relations with
Liguez. Upon these facts, the Court of Appeals held that the deed of donation was inoperative, and
null and void (1) because the husband, Lopez, had no right to donate conjugal property to the
plaintiff appellant; and (2) because the donation was tainted with illegal causa or consideration, of
which donor and donee were participants.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Pari Delicto Doctrine is applicable in this case?

2.Whether or not the deed of donation is valid notwithstanding its illegal causa?

Held:

1. No. It cannot be said that both parties had equal guilt where Lopez who is of age and the
appellant was a minor when the donation was made. Therefore, she was not fully aware of
the terms of the bargain entered into by Lopez and her parents. (Article 1411 of the Civil
Code)

2. The motive of the parties may be regarded as causa when it predetermines the purpose of
the contract. Thus the motive of Lopez to bed the plaintiff is contrary to morals and is illicit,
which makes it illegal as well. However, appellees cannot plead and prove that the donation
is illegal because Lopez himself, if living, would be barred from setting up that plea. Parties
to an illegal contract, if equally guilty, is barred from pleading the illegality of the bargain
either as a cause of action or as a defense and his heirs can have no better rights than Lopez
himself. Thus the case must be decided in view of the following provisions of the Civil Code
of 1889:

"ART. 1409. The conjugal partnership shall also be chargeable with anything which may have
been given or promised by the husband alone to the children born of the marriage in order to
obtain employment for them or give them a profession or by both spouses by common consent,
should they not have stipulated that such expenditures should be borne in whole or in part by
the separate property of one of them."

"ART. 1415. The husband may dispose of the property of the conjugal partnership for the
purposes mentioned in Article 1409."

"ART. 1413. In addition to his powers as manager the husband may for a valuable consideration
alienate and encumber the property of the conjugal partnership without the consent of the
wife."

The text of the articles makes it plain that the donation made by the husband in contravention of
law is not void in its entirety, but only in so far as it prejudices the interest of the wife.

The appellant Conchita Liguez is entitled to as much of the donated property as may be found,
upon proper liquidation, not to prejudice the share of the widow Maria Ngo in the conjugal
partnership with Salvador P. Lopez or the legitimes of the forced heirs of the latter.
G.R. No. L-45255, November 14, 1986
Heirs of Marciana G. Avila, petitioners
VS.
Honorable Court of Appeals, et Al., respondents

Facts:

In 1939, the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, as a cadastral court, adjudicated Lots 594
and 828 of the Castral Survey of Cagayan to Paz Chavez. But because Paz Chavez failed to pay the
property taxes of Lot 594, the government offered the same for sale at a public auction. Marciana G.
Avilla, a teacher, the mother of the herein petitioners, participated in and won the bidding. Despite
the provision of Section 579 of the Revised Administrative Code prohibiting public school teachers
from buying delinquent properties. After the expiration of the redemption period, the Provincial
Treasurer executed in her favor the final bill of sale.

Issue

Whether or not the contract of sale of Lot 594 to the petitioners is valid?

Held

While it is true that Marciana Avila, their mother and predecessor-in-interest, purchased the
questioned property at a public auction conducted by the government; paid the purchase price; and
was issued a final bill of sale after the expiration of the redemption period, it is however Undisputed
that such purchase was prohibited under Section 579 of the Revised Administrative Code, as
amended, which provides:chanrobles law library

Section 579. Inhibition against purchase of property at tax sale. -- Officials and employees of the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines are prohibited from purchasing, directly or indirectly,
from the Government, any property sold by the Government for the non-payment of any public tax.
Any such purchase by a public official or employee shall be void.

Article 1409: A void contract is inexistent from the beginning. It cannot be ratified neither can the
right to set up the defense of its illegality be waived. (Arsenal, Et. Al v. The Intermediate Appellate
Court, Et Al., G.R. No. 66696, July 14, 1986).

Article 1412: Moreover, Marciana Avila was a party to an illegal transaction. She cannot recover
what she has given by reason of the contract or ask for the fulfillment of what has been promised
her.