Agapay vs. Palang
Agapay vs. Palang
Agapay vs. Palang
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agapay vs. Palang
*
G.R.No.116668.July28,1997.
341
VOL.276,JULY28,1997
341
342
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agapay vs. Palang
duringthemarriageshallnottakeplaceexceptbyjudicialorderor
withoutjudicialconfermentwhenthereisanexpressstipulationin
the marriage settlements. The judgment which resulted from the
partiescompromisewasnotspecificallyandexpresslyforseparation
ofpropertyandshouldnotbesoinferred.
Same; Same; Same; Donations; The prohibition against
donations between spouses applies to donations between persons
living together as husband and wife without a valid
marriage.With respect to the house and lot, Erlinda allegedly
bought the same for P20,000.00 on September 23, 1975 when she
was only 22 years old. The testimony of the notary public who
prepared the deed of conveyance for the property reveals the
VOL.276,JULY28,1997
343
Kristopherssuccessionalrightshasbeenpointedout.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Simplicio M. Sevillejaforpetitioner.
Ray L. BasbasandFe FernandezBautistaforprivate
respondents.
ROMERO,J.:
BeforeusisapetitionforreviewofthedecisionoftheCourt
of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 24199 entitled Erlinda
Agapayv.Carlina(Cornelia)PalangandHerminiaP.Dela
CruzdatedJune22,1994involvingtheownershipoftwo
parcels of land acquired during the cohabitation of
petitionerandprivaterespondentslegitimatespouse.
MiguelPalangcontractedhisfirstmarriageonJuly16,
1949whenhetookprivaterespondentCarlina(orCornelia)
344
344
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agapay vs. Palang
_____________
1FromtheDecisionofthetrialcourtinCivilCaseNo.U4265,page
2,citingExhibitEoftheRecords;Rollo,p.29.
2AttheMethodistChurchofBinalonan.
3CivilCaseNo.U2501,CFIBranch9,Urdaneta,Pangasinan.
4Thejudiciallyconfirmedsettlementreadsinpart:COMENOWthe
VOL.276,JULY28,1997
345
346
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agapay vs. Palang
1) Dismissingthecomplaint,withcostsagainstplaintiffs;
2) Confirming the ownership of defendant Erlinda Agapay of
the residential lot located at Poblacion, Binalonan,
Pangasinan, as evidenced by TCT No. 143120, Lot 290B
includingtheoldhousestandingtherein;
3) Confirming the ownership of onehalf (1/2) portion of that
piece of agricultural land situated at Balisa, San Felipe,
Binalonan,Pangasinan,consistingof10,080squaremeters
andasevidencedbyTCTNo.101736,Lot1123AtoErlinda
Agapay;
4) Adjudicating to Kristopher Palang as his inheritance from
hisdeceasedfather,MiguelPalang,theonehalf(1/2)ofthe
agriculturallandsituatedatBalisa,SanFelipe,Binalonan,
Pangasinan,underTCTNo.101736inthenameofMiguel
Palang, provided that the former (Kristopher) executes,
within 15 days after this decision becomes final and
executory, a quitclaim forever renouncing any claims to
annul/reducethedonationtoHerminiaPalangdelaCruzof
all conjugal properties of her parents, Miguel Palang and
Carlina Vallesterol Palang, dated October 30, 1975,
otherwise,theestateofdeceasedMiguelPalangwillhaveto
besettledinanotherseparateaction;
5) Nopronouncementastodamagesandattorneysfees.
6
SOORDERED.
347
VOL.276,JULY28,1997
347
inquestion;
2. Ordering defendantappellee to vacate and deliver the
propertiesinquestiontohereinplaintiffsappellants;
3. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan to cancel
TransferCertificateofTitleNos.143120and101736andto
issue in lieu thereof another certificate of title in the name
ofplaintiffsappellants.
7
Nopronouncementastocosts.
Hence,thispetition.
PetitionerclaimsthattheCourtofAppealserredinnot
sustainingthevalidityoftwodeedsofabsolutesalecovering
the riceland and the house and lot, the first in favor of
MiguelPalangandErlindaAgapayandthesecond,infavor
of Erlinda Agapay alone. Second, petitioner contends that
respondentappellatecourterredinnotdeclaringKristopher
A. Palang as Miguel Palangs illegitimate son and thus
entitled to inherit from Miguels estate. Third, respondent
court erred, according to petitioner, in not finding that
there is sufficient pleading and evidence that Kristoffer A.
Palang or Christopher A. Palang should be considered as
partydefendant in Civil Case No.
U4625 before the trial
8
courtandinCAG.R.No.24199.
Afterstudyingthemeritsoftheinstantcase,aswellas
thepertinentprovisionsoflawandjurisprudence,theCourt
denies the petition and affirms the questioned decision of
theCourtofAppeals.
Thefirstandprincipalissueistheownershipofthetwo
pieces of property subject of this action. Petitioner assails
the
______________
7 Per Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, with the concurrence of Justices
348
348
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agapay vs. Palang
validityofthedeedsofconveyanceoverthesameparcelsof
land. There is no dispute that the transfers of ownership
fromtheoriginalownersofthericelandandthehouseand
lot,CorazonIlominandthespousesCespedes,respectively,
werevalid.
The sale of the riceland on May 17, 1973, was made in
favorofMiguelandErlinda.Theprovisionoflawapplicable
hereisArticle148oftheFamilyCodeprovidingforcasesof
cohabitation when a man and a woman who are not
capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each
otherashusbandandwifewithoutthebenefitofmarriage
or under a void marriage. While Miguel and Erlinda
contracted marriage on July 15, 1973, said union was
COMMENTARIESANDJURISPRUDENCE500(1990edition).
10TSN,February3,1988,p.78;perDecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,
Rollo,p.86.
349
VOL.276,JULY28,1997
349
andprivaterespondentCarlinaPalang.
Furthermore, it is immaterial that Miguel and Carlina
previouslyagreedtodonatetheirconjugalpropertyinfavor
oftheirdaughterHerminiain1975.Thetrialcourterredin
holding that the decision adopting their compromise
agreement in effect partakes the nature of judicial
confirmationoftheseparationofpropertybetweenspouses
12
and the termination of the conjugal partnership.
Separation of property between spouses during the
marriage shall not take place except by judicial order or
without judicial conferment when there
is an express
13
stipulation in the marriage settlements. The judgment
whichresultedfromthepartiescompromise
______________
11TheentirepropertywasboughtforP7,500.00.ExhibitC;Decision
ofthetrialcourt,Rollo,p.29.
12Decisionofthetrialcourt,p.5;Rollo,p.32.
13Article134oftheFamilyCode.
350
350
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agapay vs. Palang
wasnotspecificallyandexpresslyforseparationofproperty
andshouldnotbesoinferred.
With respect to the house and lot, Erlinda allegedly
bought the same for P20,000.00 on September 23, 1975
whenshewasonly22yearsold.Thetestimonyofthenotary
publicwhopreparedthedeedofconveyancefortheproperty
revealsthefalsehoodofthisclaim.Atty.ConstantinoSagun
testified that Miguel Palang provided the money for the
purchase price and directed
that Erlindas name alone be
14
placedasthevendee.
ThetransactionwasproperlyadonationmadebyMiguel
toErlinda,butonewhichwasclearlyvoidandinexistentby
express provision of law because it was made between
personsguiltyofadulteryorconcubinageatthetimeofthe
donation, under Article 739 of the Civil Code. Moreover,
Article 87 of the Family Code expressly provides that the
prohibitionagainstdonationsbetweenspousesnowapplies
to donations between persons living 15
together as husband
and wife without a valid marriage, for otherwise, the
condition of those who incurred16guilt would turn out to be
betterthanthoseinlegalunion.
The second issue concerning Kristopher Palangs status
andclaimasanillegitimatesonandheirtoMiguelsestate
is here resolved in favor of respondent courts correct
assessment that the trial court erred in making
pronouncements regarding Kristophers heirship and
filiation inasmuch as questions as to who are the heirs of
the decedent, proof of filiation of illegitimate children and
the determination of the estate of the latter and claims
theretoshouldbeventilatedin
______________
14TSN,October1,1986,pp.1316.
15 The law states: Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage
v. Bautista, 50
VOL.276,JULY28,1997
351
352
352
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED