Case Digest (G.R. No. 146683)
Facts:
The case involves Cirila Arcaba as the petitioner and Erlinda Tabancura Vda. de Batocael, Seigfredo C. Tabancura, Doris C. Tabancura, Luzelli C. Tabancura, Belen C. Tabancura, Raul A. Comille, Bernadette A. Comille, and Abner A. Comille as the respondents. The events leading to the case began on January 16, 1956, when Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became the registered owners of Lot No. 437-A in Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte, with a total area of 418 square meters. After Zosima's death on October 3, 1980, Francisco and his mother-in-law executed a deed of extrajudicial partition, waiving her share of the property to Francisco. On June 27, 1996, Francisco registered the lot in his name.
As Francisco aged and became dependent on others for care, he asked his niece Leticia Bellosillo, her cousin Luzviminda Paghacian, and Cirila Arcaba, a widow, to assist him. There were conflicting testimonies regarding the nature of Cirila's relationship with F...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 146683)
Facts:
Ownership of the Property
- On January 16, 1956, Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became the registered owners of Lot No. 437-A in Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte, with a total area of 418 square meters.
- After Zosima's death on October 3, 1980, Francisco and his mother-in-law, Juliana Bustalino Montallana, executed a deed of extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights, where Juliana waived her 1/4 share to Francisco.
- On June 27, 1916, Francisco registered the lot in his name with the Registry of Deeds.
Relationship Between Francisco and Cirila Arcaba
- Francisco, having no children, asked his niece Leticia Bellosillo, her cousin Luzviminda Paghacian, and petitioner Cirila Arcaba, a widow, to take care of his house and store.
- Conflicting testimonies arose regarding the nature of the relationship between Francisco and Cirila. Leticia claimed they were lovers, while Erlinda Tabancura, another niece, stated Francisco referred to Cirila as his mistress. Cirila denied these claims, stating she was merely a helper.
- Cirila testified that she was 34 years old and Francisco was 75 when she began working for him. She assisted him as his health deteriorated, and he became bedridden.
Execution of the Deed of Donation
- On January 24, 1991, Francisco executed a "Deed of Donation Inter Vivos," donating 150 square meters of Lot 437-A and his house to Cirila, citing her "faithful services" over the past ten years.
- The deed was notarized and later registered by Cirila as the absolute owner.
- Francisco died on October 4, 1991, without any children.
Legal Dispute
- In 1993, respondents (Francisco's nephews and nieces) filed a complaint against Cirila, seeking the nullity of the deed of donation, recovery of possession, and damages.
- They argued that Cirila was Francisco's common-law wife, making the donation void under Article 87 of the Family Code, which prohibits donations between spouses or persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.
Trial Court Decision
- The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the donation void based on testimonies and documents showing Cirila's use of Francisco's surname (e.g., business permits, health certificate, and death certificate).
- The court ordered Cirila to return the property and pay attorney's fees.
Court of Appeals Decision
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, citing testimonies, documents, and the fact that Cirila did not receive a regular cash wage as evidence of a common-law relationship.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Article 87 of the Family Code to declare the donation void.
- Whether Cirila Arcaba was Francisco Comille's common-law wife or merely his employee.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the donation inter vivos executed by Francisco in favor of Cirila was void under Article 87 of the Family Code. The Court found that Cirila and Francisco lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, making the donation invalid.
Ratio:
- Application of Article 87 of the Family Code: The Court ruled that Article 87 applies to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. The prohibition against donations between such persons is absolute, except for moderate gifts on family occasions.
- Proof of Common-Law Relationship: The Court found sufficient evidence to establish that Cirila and Francisco were common-law spouses. This included:
- Testimonies from Leticia Bellosillo and Erlinda Tabancura.
- Documents showing Cirila's use of Francisco's surname (e.g., business permits, health certificate, and death certificate).
- The fact that Cirila did not receive a regular cash wage, suggesting she was not merely an employee but a common-law spouse.
- Cohabitation and Public Conduct: The Court emphasized that cohabitation involves more than sexual intercourse; it includes the public assumption of a marital relationship. Cirila and Francisco's living arrangements and public conduct indicated a relationship akin to husband and wife.
- Burden of Evidence: The Court rejected Cirila's argument that the burden of proof was improperly shifted. It held that the respondents sufficiently proved the existence of a common-law relationship by a preponderance of evidence.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the nullity of the donation inter vivos, ruling that Cirila Arcaba and Francisco Comille lived together as common-law spouses without a valid marriage. The donation was therefore void under Article 87 of the Family Code.