Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-11240 December 18, 1957
CONCHITA LIGUEZ, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIA NGO VDA. DE LOPEZ, ET AL.,
respondents.
Ruiz, Ruiz and Ruiz for appellant. Laurel Law Offices for appellees.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Facts:
The case began upon complaint filed by Conchita Liguez, plaintiff, against the widow and heirs
of the late Salvador P. Lopez to recover a parcel of land. Plaintiff averred to be its legal owner,
pursuant to a deed of donation of said land, executed in her favor by the late owner, Salvador P.
Lopez. The donated land originally belonged to the conjugal partnership of Lopez and his wife,
Maria Ngo. The defense interposed was that the donation was null and void for having an illicit
causa or consideration, which was plaintiff's entering into marital relations with Salvador P.
Lopez, a married man. In the Court of First the property was adjudicated to the appellees as heirs
of Lopez. At the time of the donation, plaintiff was a minor, only 16 years of age. The donation
was made in view of the desire of Salvador P. Lopez, a man of mature years, to have sexual
relations her. Lopez had confessed to his love for but the parents of the plaintiff would not allow
him to live with her unless he first donated the land in question. He did.

Upon these facts, the Court of Appeals held that the deed of donation was inoperative, and null
and void (1) because the husband, Lopez, had no right to donate conjugal property to the plaintiff
appellant; and (2) because the donation was tainted with illegal causa or consideration, of which
donor and donee were participants.

Issue: Whether or not the donation is void?

Held: The motive of the parties may be regarded as causa when it predetermines the purpose of
the contract. Thus the motive of Lopez to bed the plaintiff is contrary to morals and is illicit,
which makes it illegal as well. However, appellees cannot plead and prove that the donation is
illegal because Lopez himself, if living, would be barred from setting up that plea. Parties to an
illegal contract, if equally guilty, is barred from pleading the illegality of the bargain either as a
cause of action or as a defense and his heirs can have no better rights than Lopez himself. Thus
the case must be decided in view of the following provisions:

"ART. 1409. The conjugal partnership shall also be chargeable with anything which may have
been given or promised by the husband alone to the children born of the marriage in order to
obtain employment for them or give them a profession or by both spouses by common consent,
should they not have stipulated that such expenditures should be borne in whole or in part by the
separate property of one of them." "ART. 1415. The husband may dispose of the property of the
conjugal partnership for the purposes mentioned in Article 1409." "ART. 1413. In addition to his
powers as manager the husband may for a valuable consideration alienate and encumber the
property of the conjugal partnership without the consent of the wife." The text of the articles
makes it plain that the donation made by the husband in contravention of law is not void in its
entirety, but only in so far as it prejudices the interest of the wife.

The appellant Conchita Liguez is entitled to as much of the donated property as may be found,
upon proper liquidation, not to prejudice the share of the widow Maria Ngo in the conjugal
partnership with Salvador P. Lopez or the legitimes of the forced heirs of the latter.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17587 September 12, 1967
PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, representing the estate of JUSTINA SANTOS
Y CANON FAUSTINO, deceased, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
LUI SHE in her own behalf and as administratrix of the intestate estate of Wong Heng,
deceased, defendant-appellant.
Nicanor S. Sison for plaintiff-appellant. Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta for defendant-appellant.

CASTRO, J.:

FACTS:
Justina Santos executed on a contract of lease in favor of Wong, covering the portion then
already leased to him and another portion fronting Florentino Torres street. The lease was for 50
years, although the lessee was given the right to withdraw at any time from the agreement.
On December 21 she executed another contract giving Wong the option to buy the leased
premises for P120,000, payable within ten years at a monthly installment of P1,000. The option,
written in Tagalog, imposed on him the obligation to pay for the food of the dogs and the salaries
of the maids in her household, the charge not to exceed P1,800 a month. The option was
conditioned on his obtaining Philippine citizenship, a petition for which was then pending in the
Court of First Instance of Rizal.
It appears, however, that this application for naturalization was withdrawn when it was
discovered that he was not a resident of Rizal. On October 28, 1958 she filed a petition to adopt
him and his children on the erroneous belief that adoption would confer on them Philippine
citizenship. The error was discovered and the proceedings were abandoned.
In the two wills executed on August 24 and 29, 1959, she bade her legatees to respect the
contracts she had entered into with Wong, but in a codicil of a later date (November 4, 1959) she
appears to have a change of heart. Claiming that the various contracts were made by her because
of machinations and inducements practiced by him, she now directed her executor to secure the
annulment of the contracts.
ISSUE:
Whether the contracts involving Wong were valid
HELD:
No, the contracts show nothing that is necessarily illegal, but considered collectively,
they reveal an insidious pattern to subvert by indirection what the Constitution directly prohibits.
To be sure, a lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. So is an option giving an alien the
right to buy real property on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship.
But if an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land, by
virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his property, this to last for
50 years, then it becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of ownership whereby
the owner divests himself in stages not only of the right to enjoy the land but also of the right to
dispose of it rights the sum total of which make up ownership. If this can be done, then the
Constitutional ban against alien landholding in the Philippines, is indeed in grave peril.