RELATION BETWEEN SPOUSES: PROHIBITION AGAINST DONATION TO EACH OTHER

ARCABA vs. VDA. DE BATOCAEL

G.R. No. 146683
22, 2001

November

Facts:
Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became the registered owners of
two lots in Zamboanga del Norte. After the death of Zosima, Francisco and his
mother-in-law executed a deed of extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights, in
which the latter waived her share of the property. Thereafter, Francisco registered
the lot in his name. Having no children to take care of him after his retirement,
Francisco asked his niece Leticia, the latters cousin Luzviminda and petitioner Cirila
Arcaba, to take care of his house and store.
Conflicting testimonies were offered as to the nature of the relationship between
Cirila and Francisco. Leticia said that the previous party was lovers since they slept
in the same room while Erlinda claimed that Francisco told her that Cirila was his
mistress. On the other hand, Cirila said she was mere helper and that Francisco was
too old for her.
A few months before Franciscos death, he executed an instrument denominated
Deed of Donation Inter Vivos in which he ceded a portion of the lot together with
is house to Cirila, who accepted the donation in the same instrument. The deed
stated that the donation was being made in consideration of the faithful services
she had rendered over the past ten years. 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.

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.

Ruling:
Where it has been established by preponderance of evidence that two persons lived
together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, the inescapable conclusion
is that the donation made by one in favor of the other is void under Article 87 of the
Family Code.
Therefore, respondents having proven by preponderance of evidence that Cirila and
Francisco lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, the donation
inter vivos is considered null and void.