8/12/2019 Calimlim vs Fortun.doc

1/5

8/12/2019 Calimlim vs Fortun.doc

2/5

On /pril #, #$%&, F2RN/NDO sold the sub4ect propert7 ith thehouse thereon to D/01IN2S for the su' of P(,&&&.&&. In thedocu'ent of sale, F2RN/NDO described the house as -alsoinherited b7 'e fro' '7 deceased parents.-

1nable to ta6e possession of the lot and house, D/01IN2Sinitiated a co'plaint on ;une #$, #$%& for 9uietin! of title andda'a!es a!ainst M2R*2D2S. The latter resisted and clai'edthat the house in dispute here she and her children ereresidin!, includin! the coconut trees on the land, ere built andplanted ith con4u!al funds and throu!h her industr7< that the saleof the land to!ether ith the house and i'prove'ents toD/01IN2S as null and void because the7 are con4u!alproperties and she had not !iven her consent to the sale,

In its ori!inal 4ud!'ent, respondent *ourt principall7 declaredD/01IN2S -as the laful oner of the land in 9uestion as ell asthe one3half => of the house erected on said land.- 1ponreconsideration 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 in9uestion and the #& coconut trees Declarin! as null and void the sale of the con4u!al house toplaintiff on /pril #, #$%& =2:hibit /> includin! the A coconut treesand other crops planted durin! the con4u!al relation beteenFernando *anullas =vendor> and his le!iti'ate ife, hereindefendant Mercedes *ali'li'3 *anullas hether or not theconstruction of a con4u!al house on the e:clusive propert7 of thehusband ipso facto !ave the land the character of con4u!alpropert7< and =(> hether or not the sale of the lot to!ether ith thehouse and i'prove'ents thereon as valid under thecircu'stances surroundin! the transaction.

The deter'ination of the first issue revolves around the

8/12/2019 Calimlim vs Fortun.doc

3/5

interpretation to be !iven to the second para!raph of /rticle #% ofthe *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 tothe partnership, but the value of the land shall be rei'bursed tothe spouse ho ons the sa'e.

?e hold that pursuant to the fore!oin! provision both the land andthe buildin! belon! to the con4u!al partnership but the con4u!alpartnership 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 berei'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

perteneca.

It is true that in the case of Maramba vs. Lozano, /relied upon b7respondent ;ud!e, it as held that the land belon!in! to one of thespouses, upon hich the spouses have built a house, beco'escon4u!al propert7 onl7 hen the con4u!al partnership is li9uidatedand inde'nit7 paid to the oner of the land. ?e believe that thebetter rule is that enunciated b7 Mr. ;ustice ;.+.C. Re7es in Padillavs. Paterno,A S*R/ ")%, "$# =#$"#>, here the folloin! ase:plained8

/s to the above properties, their conversion fro' paraphernal tocon4u!al assets should be dee'ed to retroact to the ti'e thecon4u!al buildin!s ere first constructed thereon or at the ver7latest, to the ti'e i''ediatel7 before the death of Narciso /.Padilla that ended the con4u!al partnership. The7 can not beconsidered to have beco'e con4u!al propert7 onl7 as of the ti'etheir values ere paid to the estate of the ido *oncepcionPaterno 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

8/12/2019 Calimlim vs Fortun.doc

4/5

the #$BA decision, sub4ect to the suspensive condition that theirvalues ould be rei'bursed to the ido at the li9uidation of thecon4u!al partnership< once paid, the effects of the fulfill'ent of thecondition 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/NDOcould not have alienated the house and lot to D/01IN2S sinceM2R*2D2S had not !iven her consent to said sale. 4

/nent the second issue, e find that the contract of sale as nulland void for bein! contrar7 to 'orals and public polic7. The saleas 'ade b7 a husband in favor of a concubine after he hadabandoned 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 basicsocial institution hich public polic7 cherishes and protects. 5

/rticle #B&$ of the *ivil *ode statesinter aliathat8 contracts hosecause, ob4ect, or purpose is contrar7 to la, 'orals, !ood custo's,public order, or public polic7 are voidand ine:istent fro' the ver7be!innin!.

/rticle #A( also provides that8 -*ontracts ithout cause, or ithunlawful cause, produce no effect whatsoever. The cause isunlaful 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 areprohibited. 7/nd this is so because if transfers or con conve7ancesbeteen spouses ere alloed durin! 'arria!e, that oulddestro7 the s7ste' of con4u!al partnership, a basic polic7 in civilla. It as also desi!ned to prevent the e:ercise of undueinfluence b7 one spouse over the other, 8as ell as to protect theinstitution of 'arria!e, hich is the cornerstone of fa'il7 la. Theprohibitions appl7 to a couple livin! as husband and ife ithoutbenefit of 'arria!e, otherise, -the condition of those ho incurred!uilt ould turn out to be better than those in le!al union.- Thoseprovisions are dictated b7 public interest and their criterion 'ust bei'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

8/12/2019 Calimlim vs Fortun.doc

5/5

9uote hereunder the pertinent dissertation on this point8

?e reach a different conclusion. ?hile /rt. #AA of the *ivil *odeconsiders as void a donation beteen the spouses durin! the

'arria!e, polic7 considerations of the 'ost e:i!ent character asen as the dictates of morality re9uire that the same prohibitionshould 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 spea6sune9uivocall7. If the polic7 of the la is, in the lan!ua!e of theopinion of the then ;ustice ;.+.C. Re7es of that *ourt, 5to prohibitdonations in favor of the other consort and his descendants

because of fear of undue influence and improper pressure uponthe donor, a pre4udice deepl7 rooted in our ancient la, ..., thenthere is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to

persons livin! to!ether as husband and wife without benefit ofnuptials. For it is not to be doubted that assent to such irre!ularconnection for thirt7 7ears bespea6s !reater influence of one part7over the other, so that the dan!er that the la see6s to avoid iscorrespondin!l7 increased5. Moreover, as pointed out b7 1lpian =inhis lib A( ad Sabinu', fr. #>, -It ould not be 4ust that such

donations should subsist, lest the conditions of those hoincurred !uilt should turn out to be better.- So lon! as 'arria!ere'ains the cornerstone of our fa'il7 la, reason and 'oralit7ali6e de'and that the disabilities attached to 'arria!e shouldli6eise attach to concubina!e=2'phasis supplied>,

?@2R2FOR2, the Decision of respondent ;ud!e, dated October", #$%&, and his Resolution of Nove'ber (), #$%& on petitioner5sMotion for Reconsideration, are hereb7 set aside and the sale of

the lot, house and i'prove'ents in 9uestion, is hereb7 declarednull and void. No costs.

SO ORD2R2D.

"eehan#ee $Chairman%, Plana, &elova, 'utierrez, (r., and )e laFuente, ((., concur.