Donations between lawful spouses and live-in partners (common-law spouses)

"xxx.

Nicxon correctly cites Article 147 of the Family Code as the applicable provision and the rules on co-ownership govern the property acquired during the cohabitation or "common law" marriage of Eliodoro and Adelita.52

Article 147 of the Family Code provides:

ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. (144a)

It must be noted that the subject property was registered in the names of Eliodoro and Adelita, as spouses, and there being no proof to the contrary, the subject property is presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and was owned in equal shares by them pursuant to Article 147.

What then is the effect of the Marriage Nullity Decision (in CA-G.R. SP No. 120119) on the RWR executed in 1995 by Adelita in favor of Eliodoro over the subject property?

Nicxon contends that the RWR is valid on the ground that Eliodoro and Adelita, being mere co-owners of the subject property, either of them could donate or waive their respective shares therein provided that the consent of either partner was obtained.53

On this score, Nicxon is mistaken. The RWR is void pursuant to Article 87 of the Family Code, which provides:

ART. 87. 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. (133a) (Emphasis supplied)

Undoubtedly, the RWR was without valuable or material consideration as found in the present case by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. The CA Decision in this case states:

x x x As correctly found by the trial court, no material consideration was given to Adelita in exchange of the execution of the Renunciation and Waiver of Rights. It thus partakes the nature of a donation or grant of gratuitous advantage between spouses which is prohibited 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 x x x."] Clearly, Adelita's waiver of her rights over the subject property through the [RWR] is not allowed.

[Nicxon's] argument that there was material consideration given to Adelita in exchange for her [RWR] is likewise unfounded. Adelita's admission that she received her share from the conjugal partnership of gains was made on [March 2, 2005 when she executed an affidavit as maintained by [Nicxon]. It must be recalled, however, that the [RWR] was executed on [October 29, 1995 or ten (10) years prior to the execution of the affidavit. Hence, at the time Adelita renounced and waived her rights, there was no material consideration extended to her.54

While both the CA and the RTC correctly ruled in this case that the RWR is void based on Article 87 of the Family Code, their reliance on that provision of the Article referring to "[e]very donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void" is incorrect — borne out by the fact that they erroneously believed that the marriage between Eliodoro and Adelita was valid and subsisting until Eliodoro's death. To be clear, therefore, the provision of Article 87 that squarely applies to the case is: "The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage."

Parenthetically, the Court takes this opportunity to dispel the notion that assuming the marriage between Eliodoro and Adelita was valid at the time the RWR was executed and it had valuable or material consideration the RWR would have been valid. The RWR would still be void because the sale between the spouses during their marriage is proscribed under Article 1490 of the Civil Code,55 which provides:

ART. 1490. The husband and the wife cannot sell property to each other, except:

(1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage settlements; or

(2) When there has been a judicial separation of property under Article 191. (1458a)

The reason behind the prohibition is to protect third persons who may have contracted with a spouse, believing in the existence of certain properties, and who could easily be defrauded by removing such property by transfer to the other spouse.56

Going back to Article 87 of the Family Code, the reason for the prohibition is explained thus:

x x x This provision refers to donation inter vivos. It is dictated by the principle of unity of personality of the spouses during the marriage, and is intended to avoid possible transfer of property from one spouse to the other due to passion or avarice. The intimate relations of the spouses during the marriage places the weaker spouse under the will of the stronger, whatever the sex, so that the former might be obliged, either by abuse of affection or by threats of violence, to transfer some properties to the latter. The law seeks to prevent such exploitation in marriages which might have been contracted under this stimulus of greed.

x x x The prohibition of this article also applies to the parties in what are called "common law" marriages; otherwise, the condition of those who incurred guilt would tum out to be better than those in legal union.57

Indeed, in the landmark 1971 en banc Decision in Matabuena, wherein the donation of a parcel of land made in 1956 by Felix Matabuena in favor of Petronila Cervantes while they were living together before their marriage in 1962 was invalidated, the Court emphatically pronounced:

x x x While Art. 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a "donation between the spouses during the marriage," policy considerations of the most exigent character as well as the dictates of morality require that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship. x x x

1. As announced at the outset of this opinion, a 1954 Court of Appeals decision, Buenaventura v. Bautista, interpreting a similar provision of the old Civil Code speaks unequivocally. If the policy of the law is, in the language of the opinion of the then Justice J.B.L. Reyes of the Court, "to prohibit donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the donor, a prejudice deeply rooted in our ancient law; 'porque no se engañen despojandose el uno al otro por amor que han de consuno' [according to] the Partidas (Part. IV, Tit. XI, LAW IV), reiterating the rationale 'Ne mutuato amore invicem spoliarentur' of the Pandects (Bk. 24, Tit. 1, De donat, inter virum et uxorem); then there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons living together as husband and wife without benefit of nuptials. For it is not to be doubted that assent to such irregular connection for thirty years bespeaks greater influence of one party over the other, so that the danger that the law seeks to avoid is correspondingly increased. Moreover, as already pointed out by Ulpian (in his lib. 32 ad Sabinum, fr. 1), 'it would not be just that such donations should subsist, lest the condition of those who incurred guilt should turn out to be better.' So long as marriage remains the cornerstone of our family law, reason and morality alike demand that the disabilities attached to marriage should likewise attach to concubinage."

2. It is hardly necessary to add that even in the absence of the above pronouncement, any other conclusion cannot stand the test of scrutiny. It would be to indict the framers of the Civil Code for a failure to apply a laudable rule to a situation which in its essentials cannot be distinguished. Moreover, if it is at all to be differentiated, the policy of the law which embodies a deeply-rooted notion of what is just and what is right would be nullified if such irregular relationship instead of being visited with disabilities would be attended with benefits. Certainly a legal norm should not be susceptible to such a reproach. If there is ever any occasion where the principle of statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the law is as much a part of it as what is written, this is it. Otherwise the basic purpose discernable in such codal provision would not be attained. Whatever omission may be apparent in an interpretation purely literal of the language used must be remedied by an adherence to its avowed objective. In the language of Justice Pablo: "El espiritu que informa la ley debe ser la luz que ha de guiar a los tribunales en la aplicacion de sus disposiciones."58

The jurisprudence on the nullity of donations between the parties of a common-law relationship or exclusive cohabitation or union of a man and a woman without a valid marriage found its way into the present Article 87 of the Family Code.

Given the express prohibition under Article 87 of the Family Code, the RWR executed by Adelita in favor of Eliodoro in respect of the subject property is void.

Proceeding to the third issue, given the nullity of the RWR, is the DoD that Eliodoro executed in favor of Nicxon over the subject property valid?

If the marriage between Eliodoro and Adelita was valid and their property regime was either the ACP or the CPG, the donation would definitely be void pursuant to Articles 98 and 125 of the Family Code, which provide:

ART. 98. Neither spouse may donate any community property without the consent of the other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate donations from the community property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or family distress. (n)

x x x x

ART. 125. Neither spouse may donate any conjugal partnership property without the consent of the other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate donations from the conjugal partnership property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or family distress. (174a)

It has been opined that a donation made by the husband, without the consent of the wife, would be subject to attack as a fraudulent alienation, or an alienation impairing the interest of the wife in the conjugal partnership property.59

For onerous dispositions or encumbrances of any community property or conjugal partnership property by a spouse, the written consent of the other spouse or an authority of the court is required. In the absence of such consent or authority, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void; however, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.60

Thus, among married couples wherein the ACP or the CPG is their property regime, the consent of both spouses is required under the Family Code whether the disposition is gratuitous or onerous.

Under a regime of separation of property, pursuant to Article 145 of the Family Code, each spouse shall own, dispose of, possess, administer and enjoy his or own estate, without need of the consent of the other. Understandably, each spouse can donate or alienate onerously his or her own estate without the need of obtaining the other spouse's consent.

Under Article 147 of the Family Code, which covers the exclusive cohabitation of a man and woman as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, there is unfortunately no direct prohibition on donation of any property acquired during the cohabitation by one party without the consent of the other.

It is true that Article 147 provides that the property acquired during the cohabitation shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership and pursuant to Article 493 of the Civil Code, in a co-ownership: "Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved[; b]ut the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership."

With Article 493 of the Civil Code as basis, Eliodoro could have alienated onerously or gratuitously his part or share in the subject property to Nicxon without the consent of Adelita, who was half co-owner thereof, and the alienation would have been limited to the half portion allotted to Eliodoro upon termination of the co-ownership or partition.

Even the donation by Eliodoro of the entire subject property to Nicxon, without the consent of Adelita, could produce valid effect under Article 493, which would be limited to his share. The Court, in Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals,61 explained the effect of the sale of the whole property by a co-owner, in this wise:

As earl y as 1923, this Court has ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale [Punsalan v. Boon Liat, 44 Phil. 320 (1923)]. This is because under the aforementioned codal provision [(Article 493)], the sale or other disposition affects only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the partition of the thing owned in common. [Ramirez v. Bautista, 14 Phil. 528 (1909)]. x x x62

In Paulmitan v. Court of Appeals,63 the Court reiterated that the sale by one co-owner of the property owned in common without the consent of the others did not vest in the buyer ownership over the entire property, but merely transferred to the buyer the undivided share of the seller, making the buyer the co-owner of the subject property.

Consequently, if Article 493 of the Civil Code were to be applied, the donation to Nicxon of the subject property could only affect the one-half share of Eliodoro and the one-half share of Adelita could not have been transferred to Nicxon by virtue of the DoD.

However, Article 493 of the Civil Code cannot supersede, and must yield to, Article 147 of the Family Code, which expressly mandates that: "Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation." The reason for this amendment to Article 14464 of the Civil Code rule, as it is now expressed in the Family Code, is this:

x x x If the parties are allowed to dispose of their shares in said properties like in a true co-ownership, it will destroy their relationship. The Family Code, as already stated, would like to encourage the parties to legalize their union some day and is just smoothing out the way until their relationship ripens into a valid union.65

One eminent civil law expert distinguishes ordinary co-ownership and "special co-ownership" under Article 147 in this manner:

x x x In ordinary co-ownership, a co-owner may validly alienate or encumber his undivided share in the common property without the consent of the other co-owners. This article [(Article 147)] creates an exception in the special co-ownership it recognizes between parties living together as husband and wife.Ꮮαwρhi৷ As long as the cohabitation lasts and the co-ownership exists, no disposition inter vivos of such undivided share can be validly made by one party without the consent of the other.66

Given the above express prohibition of a party to the cohabitation to encumber or alienate by acts inter vivos even his or her share in the property acquired during the cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other party until after the termination thereof under Article 147, then the donation of any property acquired during the cohabitation by one party without the consent of the other can only be but void. The rules on ordinary co-ownership cannot apply to vest validity on the undivided share of the disposing party. The donation is simply void.

If a disposition of a party’s share in the property under special co­ ownership created by virtue of Article 147 without the consent of the other party is proscribed by law, then, and with more reason, should the disposition of the entire property under such special co-ownership by a party without the other party's consent be considered void as well.

To conclude, while the Court finds merit in Nicxon's contention that the lower courts in the present case erred in finding that the property regime between Adelita and Eliodoro was governed by the ACP as their marriage subsisted until Eliodoro died, the DoD to him of the subject property is, nonetheless, void as this is a prohibited disposition under Article 147 of the Family Code.

A Final Note

Matabuena equalized common-law relationships between a man and a woman, on the one hand, and validly married spouses on the other, in respect of the nullity of donations made between the parties. This case similarly pronounces that the prohibition against a spouse to donate any absolute community property or conjugal partnership property without the consent of the other spouse equally applies to common-law relations or cohabitations of a man and a woman without a valid marriage or under a void marriage.

Xxx."


Jurisprudence -

NICXON L. PEREZ, JR., PETITIONER, VS. AVEGAIL PEREZ-SENERPIDA, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND MR. SENERPIDA, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 233365, March 24, 2021.

Source -

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_233365_2021.html