Matabuena v.
Cervantes
G.R. No. L-28771 (March 31, 1971)
FACTS:
Felix Matabuena cohabitated with Respondent. During
this period, Felix Matabuena donated to Respondent a
parcel of land. Later the two were married. After the death
of Felix Matabuena, his sister, Petitioner, sought the
nullification of the donation citing Art.133 of the Civil Code
Every donation between the spouses during the marriage
shall be void.
The trial court ruled that this case was not covered by the
prohibition because the donation was made at the time the
deceased and Respondent were not yet married and were
simply cohabitating.
ISSUE:
W/N the prohibition applies to donations between live-in
partners.
HELD:
Yes. It is a fundamental principle in statutory construction
that what is within the spirit of the law is as much a part of
the law as what is written. Since the reason for the ban on
donations between spouses during the marriage is to
prevent the possibility of undue influence and improper
pressure being exerted by one spouse on the other, there is
no reason why this prohibition shall not apply also to
common-law relationships.The court, however, said that
the lack of the donation made by the deceased to
Respondent does not necessarily mean that the
Petitioner will have exclusive rights to the disputed property
because the relationship between Felix and Respondent
were legitimated by marriage.
Matabuena v. Cervantes
Facts:
In 1956, Felix Matabuena, the brother of the plaintiff,
donated a property to his common-law spouse, Petronila
Cervantes. In 1962, six years after the donation of property,
Felix Matabuena and Petronila Cervantes got married. In the
same year, after five months, Felix Matabuena died. Being
the only sister and the nearest collateral relative of the
deceased, Cornelia Matabuena filed a claim over the
property. The lower court of Sorsogon then declared that the
donation was valid as long as it happened before Felix
Matabuena and Petronila Cervantes got married. This
decision was in accordance with the Article 133 of Civil Code
which states that donation made between spouses is null
and void.
Issue:
Whether or not the ban of donation between spouses applies
to a common-law relationship.
Rulings:
Supplying the legislative omission, the court ruled that the
ban of donation between spouses applies to a common-law
relationship. However, the lack of validity of the donation of
Felix Matabuena to Petronila Cervantes does not necessarily
result to plaintiff having exclusive rights to the disputed
property. Because Petronila and Felix Matabuena were
legally married before Felix died, Petronila is his widow.
Hence, she is entitled to 1/2 of the property of the deceased.
The other half would be given to Felix Matabuenas sister,
Cornelia Matabuena.
Matabuena v. Cervantes
We reach a different conclusion. While Art. 133 of the Civil
Code considers as void a "donation between the spouses
during the marriage", policy considerations of the most
exigent character as well as the dictates of morality require
that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law
relationship. We reverse.
The lack of validity of the donation made by the deceased to
defendant Petronila Cervantes does not necessarily result in
plaintiff having exclusive right to the disputed property. Prior
to the death of Felix Matabuena, the relationship between
him and the defendant was legitimated by their marriage on
March 28, 1962. She is therefore his widow. As provided for
in the Civil Code, she is entitled to one-half of the inheritance
and the plaintiff, as the surviving sister, to the other half.
CORNELIA MATABUENA vs. PETRONILA CERVANTES
L-2877 (38 SCRA 284) March 31, 1971
FACTS:
In 1956, herein appellants brother Felix Matabuena donated
a piece of lot to his common-law spouse, herein appellee
Petronila Cervantes. Felix and Petronila got married only in
1962 or six years after the deed of donation was executed.
Five months later, or September 13, 1962, Felix died.
Thereafter, appellant Cornelia Matabuena, by reason of
being the only sister and nearest collateral relative of the
deceased, filed a claim over the property, by virtue of a an
affidavit of self-adjudication executed by her in 1962, had the
land declared in her name and paid the estate and
inheritance taxes thereon. The lower court of Sorsogon
declared that the donation was valid inasmuch as it was
made at the time when Felix and Petronila were not yet
spouses, rendering Article 133 of the Civil Code inapplicable.
I
SSUE:
Whether or not the ban on donation between spouses during
a marriage applies to a common-law
relationship.
HELD:
While Article 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a
donation between the spouses during marriage, policy
consideration of the most exigent character as well as the
dictates of morality requires that the same prohibition should
apply to a common-law relationship. As stated in
Buenaventura vs. Bautista (50 OG 3679, 1954), if the policy
of the law is to prohibit donations in favor of the other
consort and his descendants because of fear of undue and
improper pressure and influence upon the donor, then there
is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to
persons living
together as husband and wife without the benefit of nuptials.
The lack of validity of the donation by the deceased to
appellee does not necessarily result in appellant having
exclusive right to the disputed property. As a widow,
Cervantes is entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the
surviving sister to the other half. Article 1001, Civil Code:
Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the
widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of
the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children
to the
other half.
Matabuena vs. Cervantes

A donation between spouses during marriage is void.
Donation in this case was made where there was no
marriage yet, the persons being common-law spouses. The
rule should apply to both married spouses and to persons
living together as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage. If there is any occasion where the principle of
statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the law
is as much a part of it as what is written this is it. Omission
must be remedied by adherence to its avowed objectives.
PAGUIA SAYS:
1. The law is clear, only donations between spouses are
void.
2. Rights are rooted in human needs and wants. The law in
this case is clear but the law violates morality and public
policy (but it is not violative of the constitution or other laws).
Here, public policy should be invoked. Rights may be waived
unless they are prejudicial to third persons. Here, the right
(to the land) was waived, violating the rights of the children
and other heirs.)
COMPARISON BETWEEN VELASCO VS. LOPEZ AND
MATABUENA VS. CERVANTES
The facts of the case does not apply squarely to the law in
Matabuena because the law pertains to married couples,
and the case involves an unmarried couple.
In Velasco, the law applies squarely to the case.
Velasco vs. Lopez
The law requiring the formalities of wills are clear. The
language of the law is too plain and unambiguous to justify
the courts in entering upon such inquiries for the purpose of
ascertaining the legislative intent. We must administer the
law not as we think it ought to be but as we find it and
without regard to the consequences.
Matabuena v. Cervantes
G.R. No. L-28771, March 31, 1971
FACTS:
Appellants brother Felix Matabuena donated a piece of lot to
his common-law spouse, herein appellee Petronila
Cervantes. Felix and Petronila got married only in 1962 or
six years after the deed of donation was executed. After the
death of Feliz, Cornelia Matabuena, by reason of being the
only sister and nearest collateral relative of the deceased,
filed a claim over the property, by virtue of an affidavit of self-
adjudication executed and had the land declared in her
name and paid the estate and inheritance taxes thereon.
Cornelia cites Art. 133 which provides that Every donation
between the spouses during the marriage shall be void. The
lower court of Sorsogon declared that the donation was valid
inasmuch as it was made at the time when Felix and
Petronila were not yet spouses, rendering Article 133 of the
Civil Code inapplicable.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ban on donation between spouses during
a marriage applies to a common-law relationship.
HELD:
Yes. While Article 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a
donation between the spouses during marriage, policy
consideration of the most exigent character as well as the
dictates of morality requires that the same prohibition should
apply to a common-law relationship. It is a fundamental
principle in statutory construction that what is within the spirit
of the law is as much a part of the law as what is written.
Since the reason for the ban on donations between spouses
during the marriage is too prevent the possibility of undue
influence and improper pressure being exerted by one
spouse on the other, there is no reason why this prohibition
shall not apply also to common-law relationships.
As stated in Buenaventura vs. Bautista (50 OG 3679, 1954),
if the policy of the law is to prohibit donations in favor of the
other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue
and improper pressure and influence upon the donor, then
there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to
persons living together as husband and wife without the
benefit of nuptials.
The lack of validity of the donation by the deceased to
appellee does not necessarily result in appellant having
exclusive right to the disputed property. As a widow,
Cervantes is entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the
surviving sister to the other half.