Liguez v. CA Digest
Liguez v. CA Digest
Liguez v. CA Digest
CA
Dec. 18, 1957 | Reyes, JBL, J. | Void contracts
PETITIONER: Conchita Liguez
RESPONDENT: CA, Maria Ngo, et al.
SUMMARY: Through a deed of donation, Salvador Lopez donated a parcel of land to Conchita Liguez, who was then 16. In an action
commenced by Conchita to recover the same, the CA found that the deed was null and void for having an illegal causa and for Salvadors lack of
right to donate conjugal property. This was based upon the finding that Salvador donated the land in order to cohabit with and have sexual
relations with Conchita. The CA also rejected the claim based on the in pari delicto rule. The SC found that the conveyance was indeed predicated
on an illegal causa. However, the pari delicto rule does not apply since at the time of the donation, Salvador was a man advanced in years and
Conchita was only 16. Furthermore, Salvadors forced heirs are barred from invoking the illegality of the causa, and are thereby only entitled to a
declaration of the donation as inofficious.
DOCTRINE: The rule that parties to an illegal contract, if equally guilty, will not be aided by the law but will both be left where it finds them, has
been interpreted by this Court as barring the party from pleading the illegality of the bargain either as a cause of action or as a defense.
A donation with illegal causa may produce effects under certain circumstances where the parties are not of equal guilt.
FACTS:
1. Conchita Liguez filed a complaint against the widow and
heirs of Salvador Lopez to recover a parcel of 51.84
hectares of land in Davao. She averred to be its legal owner,
pursuant to a deed of donation executed in her favor by
Salvador.
2. At the time the deed was executed, Conchita was 16. She
had also been living with Salvadors parents for barely a
month.
3. The deed of donation recites that the donor Salvador, for
and in consideration of his love and affection for Conchita,
and also for the good and valuable services rendered to
[Salvador] by [Conchita], does by these presents,
voluntarily give, grant and donate
4. The donation was made in view of Salvadors desire to have
sexual relations with Conchita. Furthermore, Conchitas
parents would not allow Conchita to live with him unless he
first donated the subject land.
5. The donated land originally belonged to the conjugal
partnership of Salvador and his wife, Maria Ngo.
6. CA: The deed of donation was inoperative, and null and
void because:
a. Lopez had no right to donate conjugal property
to Conchita;
b. The donation was tainted with illegal causa or
consideration.
7. The CA also rejected Conchitas claim based on the rule in
pari delicto non oritur actio, as embodied in Art. 1306 of
the 1889 Civil Code (as reproduced in Art. 1412 in the new
Civil Code).
8. Conchita: under Art. 1274 (of the 1889 Civil Code), in
contracts of pure beneficence the consideration is the
liberality of the donor, and liberality per se can never be
illegal, since it is neither against law or morals or public
policy.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the conveyance was predicated on illegal causa YES
2. WON the in pari delicto rule applies NO
3. WON the alienation of conjugal property was void only
insofar as it prejudices Maria Ngo
RULING: Decisions appealed from reversed and set aside.
Conchita Liguez entitled to so much of the donated property as
may be found, upon proper liquidation, not to prejudice the share