ARTICLE 87

ARCABA V. TABANCURA
G.R. No. 146683 11/22/2001

ISSUE:

Whether or not the deed of donation inter vivos executed by the late Francisco
Comille be declared void under Article 87 of the Family Code. YES

FACTS:

Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became the registered owners of
Lot No. 437-A. Zosima died in 1980 hence Francisco and his mother in law executed
a deed of extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights, where the latter waived her
share consisting of ¼ of the property in favor of Francisco. Since Francisco do not
have any children to take care of him after his retirement, he asked Leticia, his niece,
Leticia’s cousin, Luzviminda and Cirila Arcaba, the petitioner, who was then a
widow and took care of Francisco’s house as well as the store inside.

According to Leticia, Francisco and Cirila were lovers since they slept in the same
room. On the other hand, Erlinda Tabancura, another niece of Francisco claimed
that the latter told her that Cirila was his mistress. However, Cirila defensed herself
that she was a mere helper. She denied having sexual intercourse with Francisco.
When the nieces got married, Cirila who was then 34 year-old widow started
working for Francisco who was 75 year old widower. The latter did not pay him any
wages as househelper though her family was provided with food and lodging.
Francisco’s health deteriorated and became bedridden. Tabancura testified that
Francisco’s only source of income was the rentals from his lot near the public
streets.

Few months before Francisco died, he executed a “Deed of Donation Inter Vivos”
where he ceded a portion of Lot 437-A composed of 150 sq m., together with his
house to Cirila who accepted the same. This was made in consideration of the 10
year of faithful services of the petitioner.

Thereafter, Francisco died and the respondents filed a complaint against Cirila for
declaration of nullity of a deed of donation inter vivos, recovery of possession and
damages. Respondents, who are nieces, nephews and heirs by intestate succession
of Francisco, alleged that Cirila was the common-law wife of Francisco and the
donation inert vivos is void under Article 87 of the Family Code.

RULING:

Yes. Cohabitation means more than sexual intercourse, especially when one of the
parties is already old and may no longer be interested in sex at the very least,
cohabitation is a public assumption of men and women holding themselves out to
the public as such.

The donation made was void under Article 87 of the Family Code. The court in this
case considered a sufficient proof of common law relationship wherein donation is
not