414

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael
*

G.R.No.146683.November22,2001.

CIRILAARCABA,petitioner,vs.ERLINDATABANCURA
VDA. DE BATOCAEL, SEIGFREDO C. TABANCURA,
DORIS C. TABANCURA, LUZELLI C. TABANCURA,
BELEN C. TABANCURA, RAUL A. COMILLE,
BERNADETTEA.COMILLE,andABNERA.COMILLE,
respondents.
Actions; Appeals; Only questions of law may be raised in a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court;
Exceptions.Thegeneralruleisthatonlyquestionsoflawmaybe
raisedinapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,
subject only to certain exceptions: (a) when the conclusion is a
findinggroundedentirelyonspeculations,surmises,orconjectures;
(b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
impossible;(c)wherethereisgraveabuseofdiscretion;(d)whenthe
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the
findings of fact are conflicting; (f) when the Court of Appeals, in
making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the
samearecontrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee;
(g)whenthefindingsoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrarytothose
of the trial court; (h) when the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i)
whenthefindingoffactoftheCourtofAppealsispremisedonthe
supposedabsenceofevidencebutiscontradictedbytheevidenceon
record; and (j) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. It
appearingthattheCourtofAppealsbaseditsfindingsonevidence
presentedbybothparties,thegeneralruleshouldapply.
Husband and Wife; CommonLaw Relationships; Cohabitation;
Words and Phrases; Cohabitation means more than sexual
intercourse, especially when one of the parties is already old and
may no longer be interested in sexat the very least, cohabitation is
the public assumption by a man and a woman of the marital
relation, and dwelling together as man and wife, thereby holding
themselves out to the public as such, and secret meetings or nights
clandestinely spent together, even if often repeated, do not constitute
such kind of cohabitation.InBitangcor v. Tan, we held that the
termcohabitationorlivingtogetherashusbandandwifemeans
notonlyresidingunderoneroof,butalsohavingrepeated
_______________
* SECONDDIVISION.

415

VOL.370,NOVEMBER22,2001

415

Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

sexualintercourse.Cohabitation,ofcourse,meansmorethansexual
intercourse, especially when one of the parties is already old and
maynolongerbeinterestedinsex.Attheveryleast,cohabitationis
the public assumption by a man and a woman of the marital
relation, and dwelling together as man and wife, thereby holding
themselves out to the public as such. Secret meetings or nights
clandestinely spent together, even if often repeated, do not
constitute such kind of cohabitation; they are merely meretricious.
In this jurisdiction, this Court has considered as sufficient proof of
commonlaw relationship the stipulations between the parties, a
convictionofconcubinage,ortheexistenceofillegitimatechildren.
Same; Same; Same; Donations; Where it has been established
by preponderance of evidence that two persons lived together as
husband and wife without a valid marriage, the inescapable
conclusion is that the donation made by one in favor of the other is
void under Article 87 of the Family Code.Respondents having
proven by a preponderance of evidence that Cirila and Francisco
lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, the
inescapable conclusion is that the donation made by Francisco in
favorofCirilaisvoidunderArt.87oftheFamilyCode.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Pacatang, Barbaso and Pacatang Law Offices for
petitioner.
Feliciano M. Maraonforrespondents.
MENDOZA,J.:
Petitioner
Cirila Arcaba seeks review on certiorari of the
1
decision of the Court of2 Appeals, which affirmed with
modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 10, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte in Civil
Case No. 4593, declaring as void a deed of donation inter
vivosexecutedbythelateFranciscoT.Co
_______________
1PerAssociateJusticeBernardoSalasandconcurredinbyAssociate

JusticesPresbiterioVelasco,Jr.andEdgardoCruz.
2PerJudgeWilfredoC.Martinez.

416

416

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael
3

mille in her favor and its subsequent resolution denying

reconsideration.

Thefactsareasfollows:
On January 16, 1956, Francisco Comille and his wife
ZosimaMontallanabecametheregisteredownersofLotNo.
437A located at the corner of Calle Santa Rosa (now
BalintawakStreet)andCalleRosario(nowRizalAvenue)in
DipologCity,ZamboangadelNorte.Thetotalareaofthelot
4
was 418 square meters. After the death of Zosima on
October 3, 1980, Francisco and his motherinlaw, Juliana
Bustalino Montallana, executed a deed of extrajudicial
partition with waiver of rights, in which the latter waived
her share5 consisting of onefourth (1/4) of the property to
Francisco. OnJune27,1916,Franciscoregisteredthelotin
6
hisnamewiththeRegistryofDeeds.
Having no children to take care of him after7 his
retirement,FranciscoaskedhisnieceLeticiaBellosillo,
the
8
latters cousin, Luzviminda Paghacian, and petitioner
Cirila Arcaba, then a widow,
to take care of his house, as
9
wellasthestoreinside.
Conflicting testimonies were offered as to the nature of
the relationship between Cirila and Francisco. Leticia
Bellosillo said Francisco and
Cirila were lovers since they
10
11
slept in the same room, while Erlinda Tabancura,
anothernieceofFrancisco,claimedthatthelatterhadtold
12
herthatCirilawashismistress. Ontheotherhand,Cirila
said she was a mere helper who could enter the masters
bedroomonlywhentheoldmanaskedhertoandthatFran
_______________
3

Per Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz, with the concurrence of

AssociateJusticesTeodoroReginoandPresbiteroVelasco,Jr.
4Exh.A;Records,p.66.
5Exh.D;id.,p.71.
6Exhs.E&3;id.,pp.73,102.
7AlsocalledLetitia,Letecia,andLeticiaBellosillo.
8AlsoknownasLuzminda.
9

TSN (Leticia Bellosillo), pp. 1215, Sept. 27, 1994; TSN (Cirila

Arcaba),p.8,Aug.14,1994.
10TSN(LeticiaBellosillo),p.14,Sept.27,1994.
11AlsoknownasErlindaTabangcuraVda.deBatocael.
12TSN(ErlindaTabancura),p.17,April28,1994.

417

VOL.370,NOVEMBER22,2001

417

Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

ciscoinanycasewastoooldforher.Shedeniedtheyever
13
hadsexualintercourse.
It appears that when Leticia and Luzviminda were
14
married, only Cirila was left to take care of Francisco.
Cirila testified that she was a 34year old widow while
Francisco was a 75year old widower when she began
working for the latter; 15
that he could still walk with her
assistance at that time; and that his
health eventually
16
deterioratedandhebecamebedridden. ErlindaTabancura
testified that Franciscos sole source of income
consisted of
17
rentalsfromhislotnearthepublicstreets. Hedidnotpay

Cirila a regular cash wage as a househelper,

though he
18
providedherfamilywithfoodandlodging.
On January 24, 1991, a few months before his death,
Francisco executed an instrument denominated Deed of
Donation Inter Vivos in which he ceded a portion of Lot
437A, consisting of 150 square meters, together with his
house, to Cirila, who accepted the donation in the same
instrument.Franciscoleftthelargerportionof268square
metersinhisname.Thedeedstatedthatthedonationwas
beingmadeinconsiderationofthefaithfulservices[Cirila
Arcaba] had rendered over the past ten (10) years.
The
19
deed was notarized by Atty. Vic T. Lacaya,
Sr. and later
20
registeredbyCirilaasitsabsoluteowner.
OnOctober4,1991,Franciscodiedwithoutanychildren.
In1993,thelotwhichCirilareceivedfromFranciscohada
market value
of P57,105.00 and an assessed value of
21
P28,550.00.
_______________
13TSN(CirilaArcaba),p.11,Aug.14,1996.
14TSN(LeticiaBellosillo),pp.1416,Sept.27,1994.
15TSN(CirilaArcaba),p.8,Aug.14,1996.
16Id.,p.10;Rollo,p.33.
17

TSN (Erlinda Tabancura), p. 12, April 28, 1994; TSN (Cirila

Arcaba),p.8,Aug.14,1994.
18TSN(ErlindaTabancura),p.9,Aug.14,1996.
19Exh.C;Records,p.69.
20 TSN (Atty. Vic T. Lacaya, Sr.), pp. 34, Feb. 13, 1995; Exh. 3B;

Records,p.102.
21Exh.B;Records,p.68.

418

418

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

On February 18, 1993, respondents filed a complaint

against petitioner for declaration of nullity of a deed of
donation inter vivos, recovery of possession, and damages.
Respondents, who are the decedents nephews and nieces
andhisheirsbyintestatesuccession,allegedthatCirilawas
the commonlaw wife of Francisco and the donation inter
vivosmadebyFranciscoinherfavorisvoidunderArticle87
oftheFamilyCode,whichprovides:
Everydonationorgrantofgratuitousadvantage,directorindirect,
between the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except
moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the
occasionofanyfamilyrejoicing.Theprohibitionshallalsoapplyto
persons living together as husband and wife without a valid
marriage.

OnFebruary25,1999,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentin
favor of respondents, holding the donation void under this
provision of the Family Code. The trial court reached this
conclusion based on the testimony of Erlinda Tabancura
andcertaindocumentsbearingthesignatureofoneCirila
Comille. The documents were (1) an application for a

business permit to operate as real estate lessor, dated

January8,1991,withacarboncopyofthesignatureCirila
22
Comille; (2) a sanitary permit to operate as real estate
lessorwithahealthcertificateshowingthesignatureCirila
23
Comille in black ink; and (3) the death certificate of the
decedent with
the signature Cirila A. Comille written in
24
black ink. The dispositive portion of the trial courts
decisionstates:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,judgmentisrendered:
1. DeclaringtheDeedofDonationInterVivosexecutedbythe
late Francisco Comille recorded as Doc. No. 7; Page No. 3;
Book No. V; Series of 1991 in the Notarial Register of
Notary Public Vic T. Lacaya (Annex A to the Complaint)
nullandvoid;
2. Ordering the defendant to deliver possession of the house
and lot subject of the deed unto the plaintiffs within thirty
(30)daysafterfinalityofthisdecision;andfinally
_______________
22Exh.H1;id.,p.154.
23Exh.J2;id.,p.155.
24Exh.O1;id.,p.159.

419

VOL.370,NOVEMBER22,2001

419

Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

3. Orderingthedefendanttopayattorneysfeesinthesumof
P10,000.00.
SOORDERED.

25

PetitionerappealedtotheCourtofAppeals,whichrendered
on June 19, 2000 the decision subject of this appeal. As
alreadystated,theappealscourtdeniedreconsideration.Its
conclusion was based on (1) the testimonies of Leticia,
Erlinda,andCirila;(2)thecopiesofdocumentspurportedly
showingCirilasuseofFranciscossurname;(3)apleading
in another civil case mentioning payment of rentals to
CirilaasFranciscoscommonlawwife;and(4)thefactthat
Ciriladidnotreceivearegularcashwage.
Petitioner assigns the following errors as having been
committedbytheCourtofAppeals:
(a) The judgment of the Court of Appeals that
petitioner was the commonlaw wife of the late
Francisco Comille is not correct and is a reversible
error because it is based on a misapprehension of
facts,andundulybreaksthechainofcircumstances
detailedbythetotalityoftheevidence,itsfindings
being predicated on totally incompetent or hearsay
evidence, and grounded on mere speculation,
conjecture or possibility. (Salazar v. Gutierrez, 33
SCRA 243 and other cases; cited in Quiason,
PhilippineCourtsandtheirJurisdictions,1993ed.,

p.604)
(b) TheCourtofAppealserredinshiftingtheburdenof
evidence from the plaintiff to defendant. (Bunyi v.
Reyes,39SCRA504;Quiason,id.)
(c) The Court of Appeals decided the case in a way
probably not in accord with law or with the
applicablejurisprudenceinRodriguezv.Rodriguez,
20 SCRA
908, and Liguez v. CA, 102 Phil. 577,
26
584.
The issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals
correctly applied Art. 87 of the Family Code to the
circumstancesofthiscase.Afterareviewoftherecords,we
ruleintheaffirmative.
The general rule is that only questions of law may be
raisedinapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesof
Court, subject only to certain exceptions: (a) when the
conclusionisafinding
_______________
25Decision,pp.113;Rollo,pp.3648.
26Petition,p.7;Rollo,p.9.

420

420

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

groundedentirelyonspeculations,surmises,orconjectures;
(b)whentheinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken,absurd,
orimpossible;(c)wherethereisgraveabuseofdiscretion;(d)
whenthejudgmentisbasedonamisapprehensionoffacts;
(e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) when the
Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of the case and the same are contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the
findingsoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrarytothoseofthe
trial court; (h) when the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based;(i)whenthefindingoffactoftheCourtofAppealsis
premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is
contradicted by the evidence on record; and (j) when the
Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly
27
considered, would justify a different conclusion. It
appearing that the Court of Appeals based its findings on
evidencepresentedbybothparties,thegeneralruleshould
apply.
28
In Bitangcor v. Tan, we held that the term
cohabitation or living together as husband and wife
means not only residing under one roof, but also having
repeatedsexualintercourse.Cohabitation,ofcourse,means
more than sexual intercourse, especially when one of the
parties is already old and may no longer be interested in
sex.Attheveryleast,cohabitationisthepublicassumption
byamanandawomanofthemaritalrelation,anddwelling
togetherasmanandwife,therebyholdingthemselvesoutto

thepublicassuch.Secretmeetingsornightsclandestinely
spenttogether,evenifoftenrepeated,donotconstitutesuch
29
kindofcohabitation;theyaremerelymeretricious. Inthis
jurisdiction,thisCourthasconsideredassufficientproofof
commonlawrela
_______________
27 Martinez

v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123547, May 21, 2001, 358

SCRA38;Floro v. Llenado,244SCRA715(1995).
28 112 SCRA 113 (1982); See

also A. SEMPIODIY, HANDBOOK ON

THEFAMILYCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES115117(1995).
2952AmJur2d50.

421

VOL.370,NOVEMBER22,2001

421

Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

30

tionshipthestipulationsbetweentheparties,
aconviction
31
32
ofconcubinage, ortheexistenceofillegitimatechildren.
WasCirilaFranciscosemployeeorhiscommonlawwife?
Cirila admitted that she and Francisco resided under one
roof for a long time. It is very possible that the two
consummatedtheirrelationship,sinceCirilagaveFrancisco
therapeuticmassageandLeticiasaidtheysleptinthesame
bedroom. At the very least, their public conduct indicated
that theirs was not just a relationship of caregiver and
patient,butthatofexclusivepartnersakintohusbandand
wife.
AsidefromErlindaTabancurastestimonythatheruncle
told her that Cirila was his mistress, there are other
indications that Cirila and Francisco were commonlaw
spouses. Seigfredo Tabancura presented documents
apparently signed by Cirila using the surname Comille.
Aspreviouslystated,theseareanapplicationforabusiness
33
permittooperateasarealestatelessor, asanitarypermit
34
to operate as real estate lessor with a35health certificate,
and the death certificate of Francisco. These documents
show that Cirila saw herself as Franciscos commonlaw
wife, otherwise, she would not have used his last name.
Similarly, in the answer filed by Franciscos lessees in
Erlinda Tabancura, et al. vs. Gracia Adriatico Sy and
Antonio Sy, RTC Civil Case No. 4719 (for collection of
rentals),theselesseesreferredtoCirilaasthecommonlaw
spouse of Francisco. Finally, the fact that Cirila did not
demandfromFranciscoaregularcashwageisanindication
that she was not simply a caregiveremployee, but
Franciscoscommonlawspouse.Shewas,afterall,entitled
36
to a regular cash wage under the law. It is difficult to
believethatshestayedwithFrancisco
_______________
30 The

Insular Life Company, Ltd. v. Ebrado, 80 SCRA 181 (1977);

Matabuena v. Cervantes,38SCRA284(1971).
31CalimlimCanullas
32People

v. Fortun,129SCRA675(1984).

v. Villagonzalo,238SCRA215(1994);Bienvenido v. Court of

Appeals,237SCRA676(1994).
33Exh.H1;Records,p.154.
34Exh.J2;id.,p.155.
35Exh.O1;id.,p.159.
36LABORCODE,ARTS.99101.

422

422

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

and served him out of pure beneficence. Human reason

wouldthusleadtotheconclusionthatshewasFranciscos
commonlawspouse.
Respondents having proven by a preponderance of
evidence that Cirila and Francisco lived together as
husbandandwifewithoutavalidmarriage,theinescapable
conclusionisthatthedonationmadebyFranciscoinfavor
ofCirilaisvoidunderArt.87oftheFamilyCode.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the decision of the trial court is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena and De
Leon, Jr., JJ.,concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes.Whereawomanwhocohabitedwithamarried
man fails to prove that she contributed money to the
purchasepriceofariceland,thereisnobasistojustifyher
coownership over the samethe riceland should revert to
theconjugalpartnershippropertyofthemanandhislawful
wife.(Agapay vs. Palang,276SCRA340[1997])
Just like separation, free and voluntary cohabitation
with another person for at least five years does not severe
the tie of a subsisting previous marriagemarital
cohabitation for a long period of time between two
individualswhoarelegallycapacitatedtomarryeachother
is merely a ground for exemption from marriage license.
(BorjaManzano vs. Sanchez,354SCRA1[2001])
o0o
423

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.