Rodriguez vs Rodriguez (1967) G.R. No.

L-23002

Doctrine: Property Relations/ Prohibition of Donation Between Husband and Wife

Facts: Concepcion Felix, widow of the late Don Felipe Calderon and with whom she had one living child, Concepcion
Calderon, contracted a second marriage on June 20, 1929, with Domingo Rodriguez, widower with four children by a
previous marriage, named Geronimo, Esmeragdo, Jose and Mauricio, all surnamed Rodriguez.Prior to her marriage to
Rodriguez, Concepcion Felix was the registered owner of 2 fishponds located in the barrio of Babañgad, Bulacan which
she consequently sold to her daughter Concepcion Calderon for P2,500. The properties were then donated back to her
and Rodriguez thus, having the properties registered under the names of the spouses.

On March 6, 1953, Domingo Rodriguez died intestate, survived by the widow, Concepcion Felix, his children Geronimo
Esmeragdo and Mauricio and grandchildren Oscar, Juan and Ana, surnamed Rodriguez, children of a son, Jose, who had
predeceased him.The heirs of Domingo entered into an extra-judicial settlement of his estate. Among the properties
listed as conjugal were the two parcels of land in Bulacan, which, together with another piece of property, were divided
as follows: ½ to Concepcion Feix as her share to the conjugal property; ¾ of the remaining ½ to his children and ¼ of the
remaining ½ to his grandchildren. Corresponding new TCTs were issued.

On March 23, 1953, in a power of attorney executed by the children and grandchildren of Domingo Rodriguez,
Concepcion Felix was named their attorney in-fact, authorized to manage their shares in the fishponds. On October 12,
1954, the Rodriguez children executed another document granting unto the widow lifetime usufruct over one-third of
the fishpond which they received as hereditary share in the estate of Domingo, which grant was accepted by Concepcion
Felix. Then, in a contract dated December 15, 1961, the widow appeared to have leased from the Rodriguez children and
grandchildren the fishpond for a period of 5 years commencing August 16, 1962, for an annual rental of P7,161.37. At
this time, the relationship between Concepcion Felix and her step children turned sour and the widow subsequently
failed to deliver the balance of the earnings of the fishpond. A demand letter was sent to her to claim such, but her
answer was the present case seeking the annulment of the transfer to the conjugal partnership of the two fishponds on
the ground that the conveyances in issue were obtained through duress, and were inexistent, being simulated and
without consideration.

Issue: WON the transfer of the two fishponds to the conjugal property were valid

Ruling: The charge of simulation is untenable, for the characteristic of simulation is the fact that the apparent contract is
not really desired or intended to produce legal effects or in way alter the juridical situation of the parties. Thus, where a
person, in order to place his property beyond the reach of his creditors, simulates a transfer of it to another, he does not
really intend to divest himself of his title and control of the property; hence, the deed of transfer is but a sham. But
appellant contends that the sale by her to her daughter, and the subsequent sale by the latter to appellant and her
husband, the late Domingo Rodriguez, were done for the purpose of converting the property from paraphernal to
conjugal, thereby vesting a half interest in Rodriguez, and evading the prohibition against donations from one spouse to
another during coverture. If this is true, then the appellant and her daughter must have intended the two conveyance to
be real and effective; for appellant could not intend to keep the ownership of the fishponds and at the same time vest
half of them in her husband. The two contracts of sale then could not have been simulated, but were real and intended
to be fully operative, being the means to achieve the result desired. Nor does the intention of the parties to circumvent
by these contracts the law against donations between spouses make them simulated ones.

What would invalidate the conveyances now under scrutiny is the fact that they were resorted to in order to circumvent
the legal prohibition against donations between spouses. The illicit purpose then becomes illegal causa within the terms
of the old Civil Code. Unfortunately for herein appellant, in contracts invalidated by illegal subject matter or illegal causa,
apply rigorously the rule in pari delicto non oritur action, denying all recovery to the guilty parties inter se. And appellant
is clearly as guilty as her husband in the attempt to evade the legal interdiction of Article 1334. Wherefore, her present
action to reivindicate the, conveyed properties was correctly repulsed by the Court. In view of the foregoing, the
decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant Concepcion Felix Vda. de Rodriguez.
Notes:

Art. 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage
shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The
prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.

Art. 1306. If the act which constitutes the illicit consideration is neither a crime nor a misdemeanor, the following rules
shall be observed:

1. When both parties are guilty, neither of them can recover what he may have given by virtue of the contract, or
enforce the performance of the undertaking of the other party; (not sure what article is this in the NCC)