AGAPAYvsPALANG

Petitioner:ErlindaAgapay
Respondent:CarlinaPalang
FACTS:
Miguel Palang married Calina Vellesterol with whom he had 1 child. He then contracted his second
marriagewithErlindaAgapay,withwhomhehadason.Thecouplepurchasedaparcelofagriculturalland
andthetransfercertificatewasissuedintheirnames.ShealsopurchasedahouseandlotinBinalonan,
wherethepropertywaslaterissuedinhername.MiguelandCarlinaexecutedaDeedofDonation,wherein
theyagreedtodonatetheirconjugalpropertyconsistingof6parcelsoflandtotheironlychild,Herminia.
CarlinafiledacomplaintagainstMiguelandErlindaforbigamy.
Migueldied,andCarlinaandHerminiainstitutedanactionforrecoveryofownershipandpossessionwith
damagesagainstErlinda.Theysoughttoget backthericelandandhouseandlotallegedlyboughtby
MiguelduringhiscohabitationwithErlinda.RTCdismissedthecomplaintandorderedtherespondentsto
providefortheintestatesharesoftheparties,particularlyofErlinda'sson.CAreversedthetrialcourt's
decision.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotthepropertiesfromMiguel'ssecondmarriagebegrantedtoErlinda.
RULING:
No.SCheldthattheagriculturallandandhouseandlandcannotbegrantedtoErlinda.
ThesaleofthericelandwasmadeinfavorofMiguelandErlinda.Theprovisionoflawapplicablehereis
Article 148 of the Family Code providing for cases of cohabitation when a man and a woman who
arenotcapacitatedtomarryeachotherliveexclusivelywitheachotherashusbandandwifewithoutthe
benefitofmarriageorunderavoidmarriage.ThemarriageofMiguelandErlindawasnullandvoid
becausetheearliermarriageofMiguelandCarlinawasstillsubsistingandunaffectedbythelatter'sde
factoseparation.
Under Article 148, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through theiractual joint
contributionofmoney,propertyorindustryshallbeownedbythemincommoninproportiontotheir
respective contributions. It must be stressed that actual contribution is required by this provision, in
contrasttoArticle147whichstatesthateffortsinthecareandmaintenanceofthefamilyandhousehold,
areregardedascontributionstotheacquisitionofcommonpropertybyonewhohasnosalaryorincomeor
workorindustry.Iftheactualcontributionofthepartyisnotproved,therewillbenocoownershipandno
presumptionofequalshares.
Inthecaseatbar,Erlindatriedtoestablishbyhertestimonythatsheisengagedinthebusinessofbuyand
sellandhadasarisaristorebutfailedtopersuadeSCthatsheactuallycontributedmoneytobuythe
subjectriceland.Worthnotingisthefactthatonthedateofconveyance,whenshewasonlyaround20of
age and Miguel Palang was already 64 and a pensioner of the U.S. Government. Considering her
youthfulness,itisunrealistictoconcludethatshecontributedP3,750.00ashershareinthepurchaseprice
ofsubjectproperty,therebeingnoproofofthesame.
Withrespecttothehouseandlot,ErlindaallegedlyboughtthesameforP20,000.00whenshewasonly22
yearsold. Thetestimonyofthenotarypublicwhopreparedthedeedofconveyancefortheproperty
testifiedthatMiguelPalangprovidedthemoneyforthepurchasepriceanddirectedthatErlindasname
alonebeplacedasthevendee.
SinceErlindafailedtoprovethatshecontributedmoneytothepurchasepriceofthericeland,wefindno

basis to justify her coownership with Miguel over the same.Consequently, the riceland should, as
correctlyheldbytheCA,reverttotheconjugalpartnershippropertyofthedeceasedMiguelandCarlina
Palang.
ThetransactionwasproperlyadonationmadebyMigueltoErlindawasvoid.Article87oftheFamily
Codeexpresslyprovidesthattheprohibitionagainstdonationsbetweenspousesnowappliestodonations
betweenpersonslivingtogetherashusbandandwifewithoutavalidmarriage,forotherwise,thecondition
ofthosewhoincurredguiltwouldturnouttobebetterthanthoseinlegalunion.
AsregardstothedonationoftheirconjugalpropertyexecutedbyMiguelandCarlinainfavoroftheir
daughter,wasalsovoid.Separationofpropertybetweenspousesduringthemarriageshallnottakeplace
exceptbyjudicialorderorwithoutjudicialconfermentwhenthereisanexpressstipulationinthemarriage
settlements. The judgment, which resulted from, the parties compromise was not specifically and
expresslyforseparationofpropertyandshouldnotbesoinferred.