Case Digest (G.R. No. 80965)
Facts:
Petitioner Sylvia Lichauco De Leon married Jose Vicente De Leon on October 18, 1969; they had a child in 1971 and separated in 1972, and Sylvia later obtained U.S. citizenship and filed for divorce in California. On March 16, 1977 Sylvia executed a Letter-Agreement with Macaria De Leon whereby Macaria paid P100,000 and US$35,000 (claimed equivalent to P280,000) and agreed to convey certain properties; Sylvia and Jose Vicente filed a joint petition for judicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership on March 30, 1977 and the trial court approved dissolution on February 19, 1980. Macaria intervened, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig on December 29, 1983 declared the Letter-Agreement null and void, ordered Sylvia to restore P380,000 plus legal interest and to pay P100,000 attorneys’ fees, and affirmed the dissolution order; the Court of Appeals affirmed on June 30, 1987 and this petition was denied by the Supreme Court on June 6, 1990.
Issues:
- Is the Letter-Agreement of March 16, 1977 valid and enforceable?
- Did alleged intimidation or mistake vitiate Macaria De Leon’s consent to the Letter-Agreement?
- Does the *pari delicto* rule bar Macaria De Leon from recovering the money she paid under the void agreement?
Ruling:
The petition was DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals was AFFIRMED. The Court held the Letter-Agreement void as its cause was the termination of marital relations and it attempted extra-judicial effects contrary to law and public policy, and it affirmed the trial court’s award ordering Sylvia to restore P380,000 with legal interest, to pay P100,000 attorneys’ fees, and to bear costs, while leaving the judicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership intact except as to properties proven to belong to Macaria.
Ratio:
The Court found the ostensible consideration to be the termination of the marital relationship, which is contrary to Art. 52, Art. 1306, and Art. 1409 of the Civil Code and expressly proscribed by Art. 221 as an extra-judicial pact to dissolve marital relations or the conjugal partnership; ambiguities in the instrument were construed contra proferentem under Art. 1377; the properties in dispute were shown to belong to Macaria, not to the conjugal partnership under Art. 191; nevertheless, because the illegal purpose was repudiated before accomplishment and public interest favored restitution, Art. 1414 permitted recovery of the sums delivered.
Doctrine:
- A contract whose cause or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy is void ab initio (Art. 1306, Art. 1409).
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)