Arcaba v. Vda. De Batocael (2001)

Arcaba v. Vda. De Batocael

GR No. 146683

November 21, 2001

Ponente: Justice Mendoza

TOPIC: Void Donations Between Spouses under Art. 87

PARTIES:

- Petitioner: Cirila Arcaba

- Respondent: Erlinda Tabancura Vda. De Batocael

* Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA

FACTS:

- January 16, 1965 – Francisco Comille and Zosima Montallana became registered owners of Lot 437-A located at Calle Santa Rosa (Balintawak Street) and Calle Rosario (Rizal Avenue) in Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte.

- October 3, 1980 – After the death of Montallana, Comille and his mother-in-law executed a deed of extra judicial partition with waiver of rights (Montallana waived her share consisting 1/4^th of the property to Comille).

- June 27, 1916 – Comille registered the lot in his name with the Register of Deeds.

- Comille asked Leticia Bellosillo (niece), Luzviminda Paghacian (cousin) and Cirila Arcaba to take care of his house as well as the store inside since he had no children.

- Conflicting testimonies were offered as to the nature of the relationship between Camillo and Arcaba. (Lovers and mistress); Arcaba claimed she is a mere helper who could enter the master’s bedroom only when asked; denied ever having sexual intercourse with Comille

- January 24, 1991 – Few months after his death, Comille executed a “Deed of Donation Inter Vivos” – ceded a portion of Lot 437-A, consisting 150sqm, together with his house, to Arcaba who accepted the donation; Comille left the larger portion (268sqm) in his name.

- The deed stated that the donation was being made in consideration of the “faithful services (Arcaba) had rendered over the past 10 years.” – Notarized and registered by Arcaba as its absolute owner.

- October 4, 1991 – Comille died without any children; 1993 – the lot had a market value of P57,105.00 and an assessed value pf P28,550.00

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

- Feb. 18, 1993 – Respondents filed a complaint against Arcaba for DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF A DEED OF DONATION INTER VIVOS, recovery of possession and damages. (Respondents are decedent’s nephews and nieces and his heirs by intestate succession)

- Respondents: Arcaba is the common-law wife of Comille and the donation inter vivos made by the latter is void under Art. 87 of the Family Code

- Feb. 25, 1999 – RTC Branch 10 (Dipolog City) rendered decision in favor of the respondents holding the donation void under Art. 87; decision: deed of donation inter vivos null and void, ordered Arcaba to deliver possession of the house and lot unto the plaintiffs (herein respondents) within 30 days; to pay attorney’s fees

- reached the conclusion based on Erlina Tabancura’s testimony that certain documents were signed as “Cirile Comille”

- June 19, 2000 – CA denied reconsideration; conclusion was based on the testimonties of Leticia, Erlinda and Cirila; documents signed as Cirila Comille; the fact that Cirila did not receive a regular cash wage.

ISSUE: W/N the CA correctly applied Art. 87 of the Family Code to the circumstances of this case.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

- YES.

- Cohabitation or “living together has husband and wife” – not only residing under one roof, but also having repeated sexual intercourse; cohabitation is the public assumption by a man and a woman of marital relation, and dwelling together as man and wife, thereby holding themselves out to the public as such.

- In this case, the Court has considered as sufficient proof of common-law relationship the stipulations between the parties, a conviction of concubineage or the existence of illegitimate children.

- Indications that Arcaba was Comille’s common-law wife:

1. They lived together under one roof; Arcaba would give therapeutic massage and they would sleep in the same bedroom;

2. Arcaba using Comille’s last name in signing a business permit, sanitation permit

3. Arcaba did not demand a regular cash wage when she is entitled such under the law.

- Respondents having proven by preponderance of evidence that Arcaba and Comille lived together as husband and wife w/o valid marriage, the inescapable conclusion is that the donation made by Comille in favor of Arcaba is void under Art. 87 of the FC.

JUDGMENT: CA decision affirming the RTC decision is AFFIRMED.