G.R. No. 146683 - Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

On January 16, 1956, Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became the registered owners of Lot No. 437-A, situated at the corner of Calle Santa Rosa (now Balintawak Street) and Calle Rosario (now Rizal Avenue) in Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte, covering an area of 418 square meters.
After the death of Zosima on October 3, 1980, Francisco, along with his mother-in-law Juliana Bustalino Montallana, executed an extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights, whereby the latter waived her one-fourth share of the property in favor of Francisco.
Francisco subsequently registered the lot in his name on June 27, 1916, with the Registry of Deeds.

With no children to care for him in his retirement, Francisco sought the assistance of his niece Leticia Bellosillo, her cousin Luzviminda Paghacian, and petitioner Cirila Arcaba—a widow—to look after his house and the store within.
Testimonies regarding the nature of the relationship between Francisco and Cirila were conflicting:

Leticia Bellosillo testified that Francisco and Cirila were lovers, noting that they slept in the same room.
Erlinda Tabancura, another niece of Francisco, claimed that he had informed her that Cirila was his mistress.
Conversely, Cirila maintained that she was merely a helper who only entered Francisco’s bedroom at his request and denied any sexual relations, asserting that Francisco was too old for her.

Evidence indicated that when Leticia and Luzviminda were married, Cirila was left as the sole caregiver for the aging Francisco, who, though initially ambulatory at age 75, eventually became bedridden.

On January 24, 1991, shortly before his death, Francisco executed a “Deed of Donation Inter Vivos” in which he donated a portion of Lot 437-A—comprising 150 square meters along with the house—to Cirila as a recognition of her faithful services rendered over the past ten years.
This deed was notarized by Atty. Vic T. Lacaya, Sr. and later registered by Cirila as the absolute owner, while Francisco retained a larger portion of 268 square meters in his name.

Upon Francisco’s death on October 4, 1991, respondents—comprising his nephews, nieces, and heirs by intestate succession—initiated a complaint on February 18, 1993. They sought the declaration of nullity of the deed of donation, recovery of possession of the property, and damages, arguing that Cirila was Francisco’s common-law wife.
Respondents based their claim on Article 87 of the Family Code, which voids any donation or gratuitous advantage between spouses or persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, except moderate gifts made on family occasions.
In the trial court’s decision dated February 25, 1999, the deed of donation was declared null and void. The ruling was substantially supported by the testimony of Erlinda Tabancura and certain documents (including an application for a business permit, a sanitary permit with a health certificate, and Francisco’s death certificate) that reflected the signature “Cirila Comille.”
The judgment also ordered Cirila to deliver possession of the house and lot to the respondents and to pay attorney’s fees amounting to ₱10,000.00.

Petitioner Cirila Arcaba sought review on certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed, with modifications, the trial court’s ruling.
In her appeal, Cirila argued that:

The finding that she was Francisco’s common-law wife was based on a misapprehension of the facts and unsupported by the totality of evidence.
The Court of Appeals improperly shifted the burden of proof from the respondents to her.
The appellate decision was not in accord with prevailing jurisprudence, specifically referencing decisions such as Rodriguez v. Rodriguez and Liguez v. CA.

The appellate court, however, upheld the trial court’s decision, relying on the cumulative testimonial and documentary evidence which indicated that Cirila and Francisco lived together as husband and wife.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Article 87 of the Family Code in declaring the deed of donation inter vivos void, given the nature of the relationship between Francisco and Cirila.
Whether the evidentiary record sufficiently established that Cirila and Francisco were common-law spouses, thereby subjecting the donation to the prohibitions contained in Article 87.
Whether the methodologies used by the lower courts in interpreting circumstantial evidence—such as the use of Francisco’s surname by Cirila, the absence of regular cash wages, and the pattern of cohabitation—properly supported the finding of a common-law marriage.