Title
Agapay vs. Palang
Case
G.R. No. 116668
Decision Date
Jul 28, 1997
A dispute over land ownership between cohabiting partners and a legal spouse, resolved under Article 148 of the Family Code, affirming co-ownership requires proof of contribution; donation void due to adultery.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116668)

The instant petition is hereby DENIED. The questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED.Regalado, (Chairman), Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.Torres, Jr., J., on leave.[1] From the Decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. U-4265, page 2, citing Exhibit E of the Records; Rollo, p. 29.[2] At the Methodist Church of Binalonan.[3] Civil Case No. U-2501, CFI Branch 9, Urdaneta, Pangasinan.[4] The judicially-confirmed settlement reads in part:aCOME NOW the parties in the above-entitled case, assisted by their respective counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully submit this COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.1. That defendant hereby admits all the articleial allegations in the complaint;2. That the parties have mutually agreed that, for their mutual interest and that of their only child, Herminia B. Palang, all their present conjugal properties, real and personal, be conveyed or transfered (sic) to their said daughter, except some personal properties such as the car mentioned in the complaint which shall remain in the possession of the defendant; x x xa[5] Criminal Case No. U-0509. Miguel Palang, then seventy years of age, was sentenced to a minimum indeterminate penalty of three months and eleven days of Arresto Mayor and a maximum of one year, eight months and twenty-one days of Prision Correccional. Erlinda Agapay was sentenced to four years and two months of destierro.[6] Penned by Judge Manuel D. Villanueva, Rollo, pp. 28-36.[7] Per Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, with the concurrence of Justices Emeterio C. Cui and Fermin A. Martin, Jr. in CA-G.R. CV No. 24199, aCarlina (Cornelia) V. Palang and Herminia P. Dela Cruz v. Erlinda A. Agapay,a Rollo, pp. 78-90.[8] Petition, p. 8; Rollo, p. 15.[9] TOLENTINO, I CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE 500 (1990 editition).[10] TSN, February 3, 1988, p. 78; per Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, p. 86.[11] The entire property was bought for P7,500.00. Exhibit C; Decision of the trial court, Rollo, p. 29.[12] Decision of the trial court, p. 5; Rollo, p. 32.[13] Article 134 of the Family Code.[14] TSN, October 1, 1986, pp.13-16.[15] The law states: aEvery donation or grant of gratuitous advantage direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.a[16] TOLENTINO, supra. page 376 citing Buenaventura v. Bautista, 50 O.G. 3679 and Matabuena v. Cervantes, 38 SCRA 284.[17] Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, p. 89.[18] Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 35.[19] Petition, p. 11; Rollo, p. 18.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of two parcels of land acquired during the cohabitation of petitioner Erlinda Agapay and Miguel Palang, who was already married to private respondent Carlina (Cornelia) Palang at the time. Miguel Palang contracted his first marriage with Carlina on July 16, 1949, and during their marriage, they had a daughter, Herminia Palang. Miguel subsequently cohabited with petitioner Erlinda Agapay, and they purchased two parcels of land together in 1973. On October 30, 1975, Miguel and Carlina executed a Deed of Donation to settle a case filed by Carlina, agreeing to donate their conjugal property to their daughter Herminia. Miguel died in 1981, and Carlina and Herminia instituted a case against Erlinda for recovery of ownership and possession of the two parcels of land. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, declaring Carlina and Herminia as the rightful owners of the properties.

Issue:

The primary issues revolve around the ownership of the two parcels of land. Petitioner Erlinda claims that the deeds of conveyance over the properties are valid and that Kristopher A. Palang, Miguel’s illegitimate son, is entitled to inherit from Miguel’s estate. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not sustaining the validity of the deeds of absolute sale and in not declaring Kristopher as Miguel’s illegitimate son and heir.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.