CASE DIGEST ON PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS (PFR) SUBJECT

1st Year 1st Semester

Student : Guerrero, Grandeur P.G.

Freshman, Juris Doctor
Professor : Hon. Judge Eugene C. Paras

Case Digest, in re: Arts. 2 to 25 of the Family Code (Requisites of

Marriage)

Title: Agapay vs. CA, July 28, 1997

[G.R. No. 116668. July 28, 1997]

Petitioner: ERLINDA A. AGAPAY

Respondents: CARLINA (CORNELIA) V. PALANG and HERMINIA

P. DELA CRUZ

Ponente: Justice Romero

FACTS:

Miguel Palang contracted marriage with Carlina in Pangasinan in 1949. He

left to work in Hawaii a few months after the wedding. Their only child
Herminia was born in May 1950. The trial court found evident that as early
as 1957, Miguel attempted to divorce Carlina in Hawaii. When he returned
for good in 1972, he refused to live with Carlina and stayed alone in a
house in Pozzorubio Pangasinan.

The 63 year old Miguel contracted a subsequent marriage with 19 year old
Erlinda Agapay, herein petitioner. 2 months earlier, they jointly purchased
a parcel of agricultural land located at Binalonan Pangasinan. A house and
lot in the same place was likewise purchased. On the other hand, Miguel
and Carlina executed a Deed of Donation as a form of compromise
agreement and agreed to donate their conjugal property consisting of 6
parcels of land to their child Herminia.

Miguel and Erlinda’s cohabitation produced a son named Kristopher. In

1979, they were convicted of concubinage upon Carlina’s complaint. 2
years later, Miguel died. Carlina and her daughter instituted this case for
recovery of ownership and possession with damages against petitioner.
They sought to get back the land and the house and lot located at
Binalonan allegedly purchase by Miguel during his cohabitation with
petitioner. The lower court dismissed the complaint but CA reversed the
decision.
ISSUE:

Whether the agricultural land and the house and lot should be awarded in
favor of Erlinda Agapay.

RULING:

The sale of the riceland on May 17, 1973, was made in favor of Miguel and
Erlinda. However, their marriage is void because of the subsisting
marriage with Carlina. Only the properties acquired by both parties
through their actual joint contribution shall be owned by them in proportion
to their respective contributions. It is required that there be an actual
contribution. If actual contribution is not proved, there will be no co-
ownership and no presumption of equal shares.

Erlinda established in her testimony that she was engaged in the business
of buy and sell and had a sari-sari store. However, she failed to persuade
the court that she actually contributed money to the subjected riceland.
When the land was acquired, she was only around 20 years old compared
to Miguel who was already 64 years old and a pensioner of the US
Government. Considering his youthfulness, it’s unrealistic how she could
have contributed the P3,750 as her share. Thus, the court finds no basis
to justify the co-ownership with Miguel over the same. Hence, the riceland
should, as correctly held by CA, revert to the conjugal partnership property
of the deceased and Carlina.

It is immaterial that Miguel and Carlina previously agreed to donate their

conjugal property in favor of Herminia. Separation of property between
spouses during the marriage shall not take place except by judicial order or
without judicial conferment when there is an express stipulation in the
marriage settlements. The judgment resulted from the compromise was
not specifically for separation of property and should not be so inferred.

With respect to the house and lot, Atty Sagun, notary public who prepared
the deed of conveyance for the property revealed the falsehood of Erlinda’s
claim that she bought such property for P20,000 when she was 22 years
old. The lawyer testified that Miguel provided the money for the purchase
price and directed Erlinda’s name alone be placed as the vendee.

The transaction made by Miguel to Erlinda was properly a donation and

which was clearly void and inexistent by express provision of the law
because it was made between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at
the time of the donation. Moreover, Article 87 of the Family Code,
expressly provides that the prohibition against donation between spouses
now applies to donations between persons living together as husband and
wife without a valid marriage, for otherwise, the condition of those who
incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union.