Buado v. CA & Nicol (2009)

Spouses Robert Buado and Venus BUADO v. CA and Romulo NICOL

GR No. 145222

April 24, 2009

Ponente: Justice Tinga

FACTS:

Spouses Buado (petitioner) filed a complaint for damages against Erlina Nicol which was granted by the RTC (Bacoor), arising from Erlinda’s criminal offense of slander against her by the petitioners. The said decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and became final and executory. The trial court issued a writ of execution commanding the Sheriff to conduct proceedings on the goods and chattels of Erlinda or her estates or legal heirs to satisfy the petitioner’s claim. Finding that Erlinda’s personal properties insufficient to satisfy such judgment, the Deputy Sheriff issued a notice of levy on real property on execution addressed to the Register of Deeds (Cavite). A notice of sheriff’s sale was issued, and a public auction was scheduled with the petitioners as the highest bidder. A certificate of sale was issued in favor of the petitioners, which Romulo Nicol (Erlinda’s husband and herein private respondent) sought to annul. The RTC dismissed Nicol’s complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.

ISSUE:

- W/N the obligation of the wife arising from her criminal liability is chargeable to the conjugal partnership.

HOLDING:

- No. The Court does not agree that such obligation is chargeable to the conjugal partnership.

- There is no dispute that the property in question is conjugal in nature. Article 122 of the Family Code provides that payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall NOT be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family.

- Furthermore, it no way can the civil obligation arising from the crime of slander committed by Erlinda may have redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.

JUDGMENT:

- Petition is DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

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.

Serrano v. Solomon (1959)

Serrano v. Solomon

GR No. L-12093

June 29, 1959

Justice Montemayor

PARTIES:

- Plaintiff/Appellant: Estanislao Serrano

- Respondent/Appellee: Melchor Solomon

* Appeal from a decision of the COFI (Ilocos Sur)

FACTS:

- June 21, 1948 – Melchor Solomon married Alejandria Feliciano; on the same day of the marriage but before the ceremony, he executed a deed of donation:

 - Donating all exclusive properties in order that they will have a basic capital for their conjugal life and in order that there will be ready maintenance and support of their offsprings

- Referred properties are donated in accordance to PH laws

- Children out of wedlock will be the ones to inherit with same equal shares

- If no children, ½ of all the properties including the properties acquired during their conjugal union will be given to Solomon’s brothers or sisters or their heirs if the husband will die before the wife

- If Solomon’s wife (Alejandria) will die before him, 1/2 of of all the properties acquired by them will be given to those who have “reared my wife in token of my love to her.”

- March 2, 1949 – less than 9 months after the marriage, Alejandria died without issue.

- Estanislao Serrano commenced the present action to enforce and implement the terms of the alleged donation (particularly that part that if Alejandria dies and they have no children, 1/2 of Melchor’s properties and those acquired by him would be given to those persons who had raised and taken care of Alejandria, namely Estanislao Serrano).

- COFI found that the donation could not be regarded as donation propter nuptias (not made in consideration of the marriage even though it was executed before the marriage; was not made between one or both of the parties but to a third person)

ISSUE/S:

1.     W/N there was a donation made in consideration of the marriage between Melchor and Alejandria

2.     W/N the donation can be considered as donation inter vivos, if so, can it be given effect?

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

1. NO. Donation may NOT be regarded as one made in consideration of the marriage.

- Marriage itself was not the only consideration or condition under the terms of the donation.

2. Might be considered as donation inter vivos.

- NOT VALID.

- It was never accepted by the done either in the same instrument of donation or in a separate document as required by law.

- For donation to take effect after the death of the donor, it should be executed in accordance with the requisites and strict provisions governing the execution of wills.

- In this case, donor is still alive. The time and occasion have not arrived for considering its operation and implementation.

JUDGMENT:

- COFI decision declaring null and void the supposed donation propter nuptias AFFIRMED.