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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146683)

Material Facts

Francisco and his wife became registered owners of Lot No. 437‑A in 1956. After his wife’s death in 1980, Francisco acquired the remaining one‑fourth share by extrajudicial partition. Francisco had no children. Cirila, a widow when she began to live in Francisco’s house, was asked to care for his house and store along with other relatives who earlier helped. Conflicting testimony was presented about the nature of the relationship: some witnesses testified to facts suggesting a sexual or marital‑type relationship (e.g., sleeping in the same room, testimony that Francisco called Cirila his mistress), while Cirila denied sexual relations and characterized herself as a helper/caregiver who entered the master’s bedroom only when permitted. Francisco executed a notarized deed of donation inter vivos on January 24, 1991, conveying 150 sq. m. of Lot 437‑A (including the house) to Cirila in consideration of “the faithful services [she] had rendered over the past ten (10) years”; he retained 268 sq. m. The donation was later registered by Cirila. The portion donated had a market value and assessed value evidenced in the record.

Procedural History

Respondents, as heirs of Francisco, filed suit on February 18, 1993, for declaration of nullity of the deed of donation inter vivos, recovery of possession, and damages, alleging the donation was void under Article 87 of the Family Code because Cirila was Francisco’s common‑law wife. The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on February 25, 1999, declaring the deed of donation null and void, ordering delivery of possession to plaintiffs and awarding attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification on June 19, 2000. Petitioner Cirila sought review by the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The central legal question was whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Article 87 of the Family Code to declare the inter vivos donation void on the ground that the donor and donee were living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. Petitioner specifically argued (a) that the CA misapprehended facts and relied on incompetent or hearsay evidence, (b) that the CA improperly shifted the burden of proof, and (c) that the CA misapplied controlling jurisprudence.

Applicable Law and Standard of Review

Article 87, Family Code: Every donation or gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage is void (the provision also treats donations between spouses during marriage as void except for moderate gifts on family occasions). Rule 45 review is ordinarily limited to questions of law; the Supreme Court may review factual findings only under recognized exceptions (e.g., findings based entirely on speculation, manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, findings unsupported by citation of evidence, or manifest overlooking of undisputed relevant facts). The Court applied these standards in determining whether the CA’s factual findings warranted reversal.

Legal Standard on "Cohabitation" and Common‑Law Spouse Status

The Court reiterated precedent defining “cohabitation” or “living together as husband and wife” as not limited to mere residence under the same roof but also involving the public assumption of the marital relation and repeated sexual intercourse; cohabitation implies holding out to the public as man and wife and dwelling together as such. Secret or clandestine meetings, even if frequent, do not constitute the public relationship contemplated by law. The Court recognized that cohabitation encompasses more than sexual intercourse—especially where age or infirmity may limit sexual relations—and emphasized the public nature and exclusivity of the relationship as relevant indicia.

Evidence Considered by the Courts

The Court of Appeals relied on a combination of testimonial and documentary evidence: testimonies of relatives (Leticia Bellosillo, Erlinda Tabancura) and petitioner’s own testimony; documents bearing signatures showing Cirila’s use of the surname “Comille” (an application for business permit as real estate lessor, a sanitary permit with corresponding health certificate, and the death certificate of Francisco) that suggested Cirila held herself out as Francisco’s common‑law wife; a pleading in another civil case referring to Cirila as Francisco’s common‑law spouse; and the fact that Cirila did not receive a regular cash wage for her services despite working and residing in Francisco’s household. Other factual details included Cirila’s provision of therapeutic massage, testimony that she slept in the sa

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 146683)

Procedural History

Petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Cirila Arcaba assailing the Court of Appeals decision (G.R. No. 146683) rendered June 19, 2000 and its subsequent resolution denying reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals had affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte decision in Civil Case No. 4593 (Judge Wilfredo C. Martinez), which declared null and void a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos executed by the late Francisco T. Comille in favor of petitioner.
The RTC judgment was rendered on February 25, 1999; the Court of Appeals decision was per Associate Justice Bernardo Salas, concurred in by Associate Justices Presbiterio Velasco, Jr. and Edgardo Cruz. The denial of reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision was per Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz with concurrence of Associate Justices Teodoro Regino and Presbitero Velasco, Jr.
The Supreme Court (Second Division, Mendoza, J.) reviewed the records and issued the decision on November 22, 2001 (421 Phil. 1096), affirming the Court of Appeals.

Case Caption, Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Cirila Arcaba.
Respondents: 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 — nephews and nieces and heirs of the decedent Francisco T. Comille by intestate succession.
Decedent whose acts are disputed: Francisco T. Comille (deceased October 4, 1991).
Notary public who notarized the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos: Atty. Vic T. Lacaya, Sr.

Facts

On January 16, 1956, Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became registered owners of Lot No. 437-A, corner of Calle Santa Rosa (now Balintawak Street) and Calle Rosario (now Rizal Avenue) in Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte; total area 418 square meters (Exh. A; Records, p. 66).
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; Juliana waived her one-fourth share in favor of Francisco (Exh. D; Records, p. 71).
Francisco registered the lot in his name on June 27, 1916 (Exhs. E & 3; id., pp. 73, 102).
Post-retirement, Francisco, having no children to care for him, asked his niece Leticia Bellosillo, Leticia’s cousin Luzviminda Paghacian, and petitioner Cirila Arcaba (then a widow) to care for his house and the store inside (TSN Leticia Bellosillo, pp. 12–15, Sept. 27, 1994; TSN Cirila Arcaba, p. 8, Aug. 14, 1994).
Conflicting testimony on the nature of the relationship between Cirila and Francisco:
- Leticia Bellosillo testified Francisco and Cirila were lovers and slept in the same room (TSN Leticia Bellosillo, p. 14, Sept. 27, 1994).
- Erlinda Tabancura testified that Francisco told her Cirila was his mistress (TSN Erlinda Tabancura, p. 17, April 28, 1994).
- Cirila denied sexual relations, claiming she was a mere helper and could enter the master’s bedroom only when asked; she also stated Francisco was too old for her (TSN Cirila Arcaba, p. 11, Aug. 14, 1996).
When Leticia and Luzviminda married, only Cirila remained to care for Francisco (TSN Leticia Bellosillo, pp. 14–16, Sept. 27, 1994).
Cirila testified she was 34 years old and a widow when she began working for Francisco who was a 75-year-old widower; he could still walk with her assistance at that time, but later became bedridden (TSN Cirila Arcaba, p. 8, Aug. 14, 1996; id., p. 10; Rollo, p. 33).
Erlinda Tabancura testified that Francisco’s sole source of income consisted of rentals from his lot near the public streets (TSN Erlinda Tabancura, p. 12, April 28, 1994; TSN Cirila Arcaba, p. 8, Aug. 14, 1994).
Francisco did not pay Cirila a regular cash wage as a househelper, although he provided food and lodging for her family (TSN Erlinda Tabancura, p. 9, Aug. 14, 1996).

The Donation Instrument and Subsequent Events

On January 24, 1991, Francisco executed an instrument entitled “Deed of Donation Inter Vivos,” transferring a portion of Lot 437-A measuring 150 square meters, together with his house, to Cirila; the deed acknowledged acceptance by Cirila in the same instrument (Exh. C; Records, p. 69).
Francisco retained the larger portion of 268 square meters in his name.
The deed recited that the donation was made in consideration of “the faithful services [Cirila Arcaba] had rendered over the past ten (10) years.” The deed was notarized by Atty. Vic T. Lacaya, Sr. (Exh. C; Records, p. 69).
The deed was later registered by Cirila as its absolute owner (TSN Atty. Vic T. Lacaya, Sr., pp. 3–4, Feb. 13, 1995; Exh. 3-B; Records, p. 102).
Francisco died on October 4, 1991, without children.
In 1993, the portion of the lot received by Cirila had a market value of P57,105.00 and an assessed value of P28,550.00 (Exh. B; Records, p. 68).

Complaint and Causes of Action

On February 18, 1993, respondents (decedent’s nephews and nieces/heirs) filed a complaint against petitioner seeking:
- Declaration of nullity of the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos;
- Recovery of possession; and
- Damages.
Respondents’ primary allegation: Cirila was the common-law wife of Francisco and the donation is void under Article 87 of the Family Code, which provides:
- “Every 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.”

Evidence Offered at Trial

Testimony of:
- Leticia (Bellosillo/Belosillo) — testified to sleeping in same room and caregiving history (TSN Leticia Bellosillo, pp. 12–15, Sept. 27, 1994).
- Erlinda Tabancura — testified regarding Francisco’s statement that Cirila was his mistress and Francisco’s income sources (TSN Erlinda Tabancura, pp. 12, 17; various dates).
- Cirila Arcaba — testified on the nature of her relationship and her caregiving duties and age difference (TSN Cirila Arcaba, pp. 8, 10, 11; Aug. 14, 1996).
- Atty. Vic T. Lacaya, Sr. — testified as notary; registration testimony (pp. 3–4, Feb. 13, 1995).
Documentary exhibits indicating use of the surname “Comille” by Cirila:
- Application for a business permit to operate as real estate lessor dated January 8, 1991 with carbon copy signature “Cirila Comille” (Exh. H-1; Records, p. 154).
- Sanitary permit to operate as real estate lessor with a health certificate showing signature “Cirila Comille” in black ink (Exh. J-2; Records, p. 155).
- Death certificate of the decedent Francisco bearing the signature “Cirila A. Comille” in black ink (Exh. O-1; Records, p. 159).
Additional pleading from separate civil case (RTC Civil Case No. 4719, “Erlinda Tabancura, et al. vs. Gracia Adriatico Sy and Antonio Sy”) wherein lessees referred to Cirila as “the common-law spouse of Francisco”; respondents relied on this as corroborative of public assumption.
Reference to labor law (Labor Code arts. 99–101) as context for expectation that a household helper would be entitled to a regular cash wage.

Trial Court Findings and Judgment (RTC)

The trial court found the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos null and void under Article 87 of the Family Code, concluding Cirila was the common-law wife of Francisco.
The trial court relied on Erlinda Tabancura’s testimony and documents bearing the signature “Cirila Comille” as supporting evidence.
Dispositive portion of the RTC judgment ordered:
1. The Deed of Donation Inter Vivos (Doc. No. 7; Page No. 3; Book No. V; Series of 1991 in Notarial Register of Notary Public Vic T. Lacaya) declared null and void.
2. Defendant (Cirila) ordered to deliver possession of the house and lot to plaintiffs within thirty (30) days after finality of the decision.
3. Defendant ordered to pay attorney’s fees in the sum of P10,000.00.
The trial court decision is recorded at Decision, pp. 1–13; Rollo, pp. 36–48.

Court of Appeals Decision and Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment with modification on June 19, 2000 (decision per Associate Justice Bernardo Salas; concurrences noted).
The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Cirila was the common-law wife of Francisco relied on:
- Testimonies of Leticia, Erlinda, and Cirila;
- Copies of documents showing Cirila’s use of Francisco’s surname (“Comille”) — Exhs. H-1, J-2, O-1;
- A pleading in another civil case that mentioned payment of rentals to Cirila as Francisco’s common-law wife;
- The fact that Cirila did not receive a regular cash wage from Francisco.
The Court of Appeals thus held that respondents proved by a preponderance of evidence that Cirila and Francisco lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, rendering the donation void under Article 87.

Petitioner’s Assignments of Error on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Petitioner Cirila Arcaba assigned errors asserting the Court of Appeals:
- (a) Erred in finding petitioner to be the common-law wife of Francisco — the finding is allegedly based on misapprehension of facts, incompetent or hearsay evidence, speculation, conjecture or possibility (citing Salazar v. Gutierrez, 33 SCRA 243 and other cases; Quiason).
- (b) Erred in shifting the burden of proof from the plaintiff (respondents) to the defendant (petitioner) (citing Bunyi v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 504; Quiason).
- (c) Decided the case contrary to applicable jurisprudence, citing Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 20 SCRA 908, and Liguez v. CA, 102 Phil. 577, 584.
Petitioner contended the Court of Appeals’ factual findings were incorrect and reversible.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Article 87 of the Family Code to hold the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos void on the ground that petitioner and Francisco were living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.

Applicable Legal Principles and Authorities Cited by the Supreme Court

Gener