Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Agapay V Palang

    Uploaded by

    Yanna Beatriz Nieto
    1) Miguel Palang married Carlina Palang in 1949 and they had one child, Herminia. However, in 1973 Miguel married Erlinda Agapay while still married to Carlina. 2) Before the second marriage, Miguel and Erlinda purchased agricultural land. A house and lot was also purchased allegedly by just Erlinda. 3) Carlina and Herminia sued to recover the land and house, arguing they were purchased during Miguel's invalid second marriage to Erlinda. 4) The court ruled in favor of Carlina and Herminia, finding that Erlinda failed to prove she contributed to buying the land and the house purchase was really

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Agapay V Palang

    Uploaded by

    Yanna Beatriz Nieto
    31 views1 page
    1) Miguel Palang married Carlina Palang in 1949 and they had one child, Herminia. However, in 1973 Miguel married Erlinda Agapay while still married to Carlina. 2) Before the second marriage, Miguel and Erlinda purchased agricultural land. A house and lot was also purchased allegedly by just Erlinda. 3) Carlina and Herminia sued to recover the land and house, arguing they were purchased during Miguel's invalid second marriage to Erlinda. 4) The court ruled in favor of Carlina and Herminia, finding that Erlinda failed to prove she contributed to buying the land and the house purchase was really

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Agapay v Palang

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Miguel Palang married Carlina Palang in 1949 and they had one child, Herminia. However, in 1973 Miguel married Erlinda Agapay while still married to Carlina. 2) Before the second marriage, Miguel and Erlinda purchased agricultural land. A house and lot was also purchased allegedly by just Erlinda. 3) Carlina and Herminia sued to recover the land and house, arguing they were purchased during Miguel's invalid second marriage to Erlinda. 4) The court ruled in favor of Carlina and Herminia, finding that Erlinda failed to prove she contributed to buying the land and the house purchase was really

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views1 page

    Agapay V Palang

    Uploaded by

    Yanna Beatriz Nieto
    1) Miguel Palang married Carlina Palang in 1949 and they had one child, Herminia. However, in 1973 Miguel married Erlinda Agapay while still married to Carlina. 2) Before the second marriage, Miguel and Erlinda purchased agricultural land. A house and lot was also purchased allegedly by just Erlinda. 3) Carlina and Herminia sued to recover the land and house, arguing they were purchased during Miguel's invalid second marriage to Erlinda. 4) The court ruled in favor of Carlina and Herminia, finding that Erlinda failed to prove she contributed to buying the land and the house purchase was really

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Agapay v Palang

    GR 116668 | July 28, 1997 | Romero Issue: Whether or Not Carlina Palang and
    Herminia Palang Dela Cruz are entitled for the
    Facts: recovery of the Riceland and house and lot
    1. Miguel Palang married respondent which were both purchased during the
    Carlina Palang on July 16, 1949. Miguel cohabitation of Miguel with Erlinda.
    and Carlina’s only child is Herminia
    Palang. Ruling: Yes, Respondents are entitled for the
    recovery of the Riceland and the house and
    2. However, On July 15, 1973, the then 63 lot.
    year old Miguel contracted his second
    marriage with Erlinda Agapay The provision of law applicable is Art
    (petitioner), 19 years old. 148 of the Family Code as Miguel and Erlinda
    contracted marriage on July 15, 1973, and thus,
    said union was patently void because the earlier
    3. Two months before the said second marriage of Miguel and Carlina was still
    marriage, Miguel and Erlinda, as subsisting and unaffected by the latter’s de facto
    evidenced by the Deed of Sale, jointly separation.
    purchased a parcel of agricultural land
    located at Pangasinan with an area of Under Art 148, only the properties
    10,080 square meters. acquired by both of the parties through their
    actual joint contribution of money, property or
    4. A house and lot in Pangasinan was industry shall be owned by them in common in
    likewise purchased on September 23, proportion to their respective contributions. It
    1975, allegedly by Erlinda as the sole must be stressed that actual contribution is
    vendee. required by this provision. In the absence of
    proof for such requirement, there will be no co-
    5. Miguel and Erlinda’s cohabitation ownership and no presumption of equal shares.
    produced a son, Kristopher A. Palang.
    In this case, petitioner Erlinda failed to
    6. In 1979, Miguel and Erlinda were prove that she contributed money to purchase
    convicted of concubinage upon Carlina’s price of the Riceland. Worth noting is the fact
    complaint. that on the date of conveyance, Erlinda was only
    around 20 years of age and Miguel was already
    7. On July 11, 1981, Carlina Palang and 64 and a pensioner of the US government.
    her daughter Herminia Palang Dela Considering her youthfulness, it is unrealistic to
    Cruz instituted the case at bar, an action conclude that in 1973 she contributed P3,750.00
    for recovery of ownership and as her share in the purchase price of subject
    possession with damages against property, there being no proof of the same.
    petitioner.
    With respect to the house and lot, the
    8. Private respondents sought to get back testimony of the notary public who prepared the
    the Riceland and the house and lot both deed of conveyance reveals the falsehood of
    located in Pangasinan allegedly this claim because Atty Sagun testified that
    purchased by Miguel during his Miguel provided the money for the purchase
    cohabitation with petitioner Erlinda. price and directed that Erlinda’s name alone be
    place as the vendee, and thus, the transaction is
    9. Erlinda, however, contented that as a donation. But such donation is clearly void and
    regards to the Riceland, she had already inexistent by express provision of law because it
    given half of the property to their son was made between persons guilty of
    Kristopher while as to the house and lot, concubinage at the time of donation. (Art 739
    she added that the same is her sole CC) And Art 87 of Family Code expressly
    property, having bought the same with provides the prohibition against donation
    her own money. between spouses now applies to donations
    between persons living together as husband and
    wife without a valid marriage.

    You might also like