Garcia vs. Sangil

Facts:

Paulina Garcia v. Roberto Sangil, Alejandro Sangil and Sixto Joaquin, G.R. No. 29593, December 29, 1928, the Supreme Court (Avancena, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concurring), Ostrand, J., writing for the Court.

The plaintiff-appellee, Paulina Garcia, sued the defendants-appellants Roberto Sangil, Alejandro Sangil, and Sixto Joaquin for dissolution of a partnership and an accounting of profits from a rice-mill enterprise. Prior to June 13, 1923, Alejandro, Roberto and one Jose Flores were owners of the rice mill, Alejandro and Roberto each having contributed P10,500 and Flores P4,500. On June 13, 1923, Alejandro executed a deed of donation, described as absolute and irrevocable, conveying his share in the mill to Paulina; later that same day Alejandro and Paulina were married.

The marriage proved unsuccessful, and the spouses separated in January 1925. Paulina demanded her share of profits from Roberto (who was manager of the mill); he refused. Paulina filed the present action for dissolution and accounting (seeking profits from June 13, 1923). She also filed a separate maintenance action against Alejandro; by order of March 30, 1925 Alejandro was required to pay P30 per month pendente lite.

On August 20, 1925, Sixto Joaquin sued Alejandro on a promissory note for P15,000; Alejandro answered in a manner amounting to a confession of judgment, and the Court of First Instance entered judgment. Execution was levied on Alejandro’s property and on the share in the rice mill that had been donated to Paulina; at the levy sale Joaquin bought the property.

At trial of Paulina’s case the court below found the deed of donation had been executed moments before the civil marriage, that Alejandro there described himself as a widower and Paulina as unmarried, and that the donation conveyed Alejandro’s P10,500 share absolutely and irrevocably to Paulina. The trial court held Paulina the absolute and exclusive owner of that share, characterized it as paraphernal property, ruled she was entitled to dividends and profits (the decision ordered an accounting of profits and losses from January 31, 1925, to determine amounts due her), and declared the execution sale under Joaquin’s levy null and void as to her share. Alejandro w...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Was the deed of donation from Alejandro Sangil to Paulina Garcia void under Article 1334 of the Civil Code because it was made during the marriage of the spouses?

• If the donation to Paulina was valid, was the execution sale under Sixto Joaquin’s judgment void...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)