L-2877 (38 SCRA 284) March 31, 1971
Topics:
donation
Doctrines:
Article 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a donation between the spouses during marriage, policy consideration of the most exigent character as well as the dictates of morality requires that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship
Summary:
Felix Matabuena gave a house to Petronila Cervantes, his common-law spouse, in 1956. Felix and Petronila were wed in March 1962. After five months, Felix passed away intestate, leaving behind his sister Cornelia and Petronila. The property that was donated to Petronila was afterwards. The appellant does not necessarily have the only right to the in dispute property because the deceased’s bequest to the appellee was invalid. Cervantes is entitled to receive half of their inheritance as a widow, while the surviving sister is entitled to get the other half.
Facts:
Felix Matabuena gave a house to Petronila Cervantes, his common-law spouse, in 1956. Felix and Petronila were wed in March 1962. After five months, Felix passed away intestate, leaving behind his sister Cornelia and Petronila. The property that was donated to Petronila was afterwards sought after by Cornelia, the deceased’s sole sister and the closest collateral relative, on the grounds that “any donation between the spouses during the marriage must be void” as stated in Art. 133 of the Civil Code. The donation was made when Felix and Petronila were not yet married and were merely cohabiting, thus the trial court determined that the case was not covered by the restriction.
Issue:
Does the prohibition on interspousal donations during marriage extend to common-law relationships?
Ruling:
Yes. The idea that what is in line with the spirit of the law is just as much a part of it as what is written down is a key tenet of statutory construction. There is no reason why this prohibition should not also apply to common-law partnerships since the prohibition on donations between spouses during the marriage exists to prevent the potential of improper pressure and undue influence being applied by one spouse on the other. While Felix and Petronila’s relationship was legalized by marriage, the fact that the deceased’s donation to Petronila was invalid does not necessarily indicate that Cornelia will hold exclusive rights to the contested property. Therefore, she is his widow. She is entitled to one-half of the inheritance under the Civil Code, while the plaintiff, as the surviving sister, is entitled to the other half.