DOMINGA FIEL, plaintiff and appellee, vs. JULIO BANAWA, ET AL.

, defendants and appellants donations are in violation of Article 739 of the Civil Code; that pursuant Article 485 of said Code;
the share of each co- owner shall be proportionate to their respective interests; that the plaintiff
1979-03-26 | No. 56284-R voluntarily left the house where she and Natalio Banawa used to live; that the plaintiff did not
bring into the partition the properties of Natalio Banawa such as Lot 1076, Tangub Cadastre, sold
GUTIERREZ, H.E., J.: under pacto de retro to Natalio Banawa by Marcela Alhas on November 22, 1966; three parcels
of residential lots portion of Lot 5196, Cadastral Case No. 5, located at Labinay, 400, 600 and 800
square meters in area, respectively; a parcel of land leased to Natalio Banawa for 20 years from
Dominga Fiel, who lived in a common law relationship with Natalio Banawa for 25 years, filed a complaint May 29, 1970, located at Manga, Tangub City; Cadastral Lot 4026 Case 5, located at Labinay,
on March 3, 1971 for the annulment of a partition of the properties allegedly owned in common by her Ozamin City, 50,000 square meters n area; coco and corn land sitauted at Villaba, Tangub City,
and the letter. 3,7568 in area, and some personal properties and household furnitures and large cattles.

The lower Court summarized the facts of the case, in a substatially correct manner, as follows: In the instant case, the partition as made on October 22, 1970, and the action to amend it was
filed on March 3, 1971, or in less than 5 months.
It appears that Natalio Manawa, a widower, started living Dominga Fiel as his common-law wife
during the early part of the year 1945 up to his death on June 29, 1970. Natalio BanawaOndied,
February
a 4, 1974, the lower court rendered its decision ordering the plaintiff and the defendants to
victim of robbery and murder. devide the properties which the Court found to be owned in common by Dominga Fiel and Natalio Banawa,
one half to Dominga Fiel and the other half to the heir of Natalio Banawa.
Upon his death, Natalio Banawa wwas survived by his brothers and nephews, the defendants
herein. His wife died ahead of him. The defendants raised four assignments of errors in their appeal, namely--
First Assignment of Error
He had no children.
The lower court erred in not giving force and effect to the deed of partition executed by the parties on
On October 22, 1970, Emiliano Cuering, one of the nephews of the late Natalio Banawa, brought
October 22, 1970.
Atty. Percival Catane of Oroquieta City to the house of Natalio Banawa and his common-law wife
Dominga Fiel, in Baga, Tangub City, to draw the document of partition of properties of Dominga
Second Assignment of Error
Fiel and Natalio Banawa. The partition was very much delayed because of the wrangling and
disagreement had among them. Because of the advice of Atty. Catane to Dominga Fiel, the later The lower court erred in not declaring null and void the donationsmade by Natalo Banawa to
signed the partition, Dominga Fiel was not given a copy of the partition. She was given only the Dominga Fiel.
third of the properties under the partition while two birds were given to the brothers and
nephews of Natalio Banawa upon the advice of Atty. Percival Catane. Third Assignment of Error

A few months after, Dominga Fiel realized that her share in a partition was very much less than The lower Court erred in not finding that there was no informal civil partnership between Natalio
what she ought to received. She therefore consulted a lawyer, Atty. Valeriano S. Kaamino, who Banawa and Dominga fiel.
advised her, to secure a copy of said petition. On November 24, 1970, Dominga Fiel went to Atty.
Percival B. Catane at Oroquieta City and secured a copy of the partition. On March 3, 1971, FourththisAssignment of Error
complaintwas filed.
The Lower Court erred in not dismissing the compliant.
On April 1, 1971, the dependants through their counsel, Atty. Liliano B. Neri, filed an answer to
the complaint which was amended on November 23, 1972. The answer alleges that plaintiff Thefreely
third assignment of error is material to the determination of the merits of this appeal and affects the
gave her consent to the partition; in fact, she implemented it by receiving shares of the state;
firstthat
and assigned errors. We, therefore, discuss it first.
it was the plaintiff who concealed some properties by reason of which, they were not included in
the partition; that the properties desired to be partition were acquired through the effortsPhilippine
of law does not recognized common-law marriages. A man and woman not legally married who
Natalio Banawa from whom Dominga Fiel and her son, Francisco Potestas, were dependents; co-habit
that for many years as husband and wife, who represent themselves to the public as husband and wife
francisco went through college through the support of Natalio Banawa; that the donation in made
the community where they live maybe considered legally "married" in common law jurisdiction but not
by Natalio Banawa to plaintiff were procured through fraud and undue influence and that in the
said
philippines. At the same time, our law cannot brush aside the fact that such relationship are present
in our society, and that they produce a community of properties which must be governed by law. For
Ourwant
ruling is buttressed by the opinion expressed by the Supreme Court in Manila Surety and Fidelity Co.
of a better term, we call the relationship as "common-law relationships" or even "common-law marriages"
v. Teodoro (20 SCRA 463) through then Mr. Justice Makalintal that the requirement of "no impediment to
erroneous through the latter term maybe. a valid marriage" is not yet a definite and unequivocal rule. According ti the court:

Article 114 of the civil code applies the rules of co-ownership to the properties acquired during the period The decision cited under the first ground are Christensen vs. Garcia, 56 O.G. No. 16, p. 3199;
of the "common law relationship" as follows: Samson vs. Salaysay, 56 O.G. No. 11, p. 2401; and Osmena vs. Rodriguez, 54 O.G. No. 20, p. 5526.
In a proper case, where it may be necessary to do so in order to resolved an avoidable issue, the
ART. 144. When a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, precise scope of the two impediment to a valid marriage" in the said decision will undoubtedly
or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them deserve closer examination, since it establishes an exception to the broad terms of Article 144.
through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules of co- For one thing, a situation may arise involving a conflict of rights between a co-ownership under
ownership. that provision and an existing conjugal partnership formed by s prior marriage where, for instance,
the husband in such marriage lives with another woman and with his salary or wages acquires
The appellants cite jurisprudence (Aznar v. Cristensen Garcia, 102 Phil. 1055 and Olnangan v. Gallego CA- properties during the extra-marital cohabitation. A ruling would then be in order to determine
G.R. No. 22140, April 11, 1962) which hold that Article 144 requires that the man and woman,thus living which-as between the co-ownership and the conjugal partnership-could claim ascendancy insofar
together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage and that the properties must have as the properties are concerned.
been acquired through the work and industry of both or either of them.
The first assignment of error disputes a factual finding of the lower Court. According to Dominga Fiel when
The second requisite is fulfilled. she signed the document of partition on October 22, 1970, she was still in,a state of shock, fear, mental
anguish, and hysteria because she and Natalio Banawa were the victims of a robbery which resulted in the
We are convinced from the records that Natalio Banawa disposed of his properties after he became death aof her common-law husband. The surviving brothers and nephews of Banawa allegedly used
widower and that it was upon commencing his relationship with the plaintiff that the two set up a intimidation
sari-sari and duress to force her into giving the former of two thirds of tha couples common properties
store and went into the buying and selling of cereals which led to the acquisition of the disputed properties.
while she received only one third. The appellants, onthe other hand, contend that the document of
While the testimony about the two starting their business with the gift from the plaintiff's parentspartition
maybe was voluntarily signed by the plaintiff after a full and complete exchange of views among the
an exaggeration, the evidence sufficiently establishes the common nature of the acquisitioncontracting of the parties and that she should be boumd by her own voluntary acts.
properties listed by the trial court in its decision.
The lower Court did not state why it did not give force and effects to the deed of partition and instead,
The appellants' invocation of Article 144 raises a more serious objection. The cited cases rule that the
simply
mandisregarded it. We agree, however, with the results of its unstated findings. The appellants have not
and woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to the contract marriage. The plaintiff-pointed to any evidence in the records to explain why Dominga Fiel would voluntarily and knowingly give
appellee admitted that she was legally married to Eusebio Porestas and that Eusebio Potestss was still up what
alive she had struggled to acquire with Banawa over a period of 25 years and waive part of her share
when she testified in the trial court. The argument in appelle's brief that she and Potestas are in pariindelicto
a co-ownership under Article 144. On the other hand, the appellee has given the background of her
is beside the point. The fact that Potestas lives with another woman does not free the appelle signature
from on the deed. She convinced the trial court that she was not in her correct senses when the
requirements of Article 144. defendants used intimidation, pressure, and influence to sign a document she did not eve understand and
a copy of which was not furnished to her. We therefore see no error in the lower Court's disregarding the
However, the reason behind the cited rulings leads us to affirm the existence of co-ownership. Where deed both
of partition and deciding the case on some other grounds. The Court witness for both parties and
man and woman are married to living spouses, Article 144 does not apply because the earnings ascertain
and who was lying and who was telling the truth.
income of either the man or the woman or the woman pertain to his or her real, legal, and existing conjugal
partnership. In this case, however, Natalio Banawa was a widower with mo children when he The and second
the assignment of error questions the validity of donations made by Natalio Banawa to Dominga
plaintiff started to accumulate the disputed properties. There was no legal conjugal partnershipfiel andduring
no their common law relationship. the lower Court excluded and donated properties from the
children to whom his share of their earnings would accrue. The defendants are only brothers and nephews.
partition and identified them as-
There appears to be no question from the records that the disputed properties were acquired through the
couples joint efforts and from the work or labor of the man alone. On the combined strength of legal and Paragraph 1 of the partition recites that Natalio Banawa donated a parcel of land, portion of Lot
equitable considerations, we rule that the co-ownership rules provided by Article 144 of the Civil Code are No. 5197, Case 5, located at Labinay, Ozamis City, in favor of Dominga Fiel (Exhibit C) March 15,
applicable. Dominga Fiel should received one half of the fruits and earnings of her joint effort with Natalio 1945. This lot should not be included in the partition.
Banawa. The properties in part came from her own sweat, brains, and efforts.
 Paragraph 3, Lot of 640 square meters located at Baga, Tangaub City, and the house The therein
donation are, therefore, null and void not only because of Article 739 but also because they are
situated, together with the furnitures enumerated in the deed of donation dated September
contrary
4, to public policy.
1963, Doc. No. 47, Page No. 8, Book No. 1, series of 1963, (Exhibit F) were donated to plaintiff
Dominga Fiel by the late Natalio Banawa. This should not be included in the partition. In Matabuena v. Cervanres (38 SCRA 284) the Supreme Court thought Mr. Justice Fernando also ruled that:

We agree with the appellants that these lots should be included in the properties owned in common by While Art. 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a "donation between the spouses during the
the deceased and the plaintiff because Natalio Banawa could not validly make a donation to Dominga Fiel marriage," policy considerations of the most exigent character as well as the dictates of morality
while they were living together. require that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship.

Article 739 of the Civil Code expressly provides that donations made between persons guilty of adultery
The appellants
or have also raised the applicability of Article 114 of the Civil Code which provides:
concubinage at that time of donation are void. Not merely voidable but void. There is no question that
Dominga Fiel was living in adultery with Natalio Banawa when the latter donated the two lots to her. She Art. 114. The wife cannot, without the husband's consent, acquire any property by gratuitous title,
herself admitted in open court that she was legally married to another man who was still alive when except from her ascendants, descendants, parents-in-law, and collateral relatives within the
Banawa was robbed and killed and who is apparently alive until the present. The lower Court erred that fourth degree.
"final conviction of the donee or donor is required as a condition precedent before a donation of this
nature can be declared void." The adultery or concubinage need to be prove in a criminal action. Natalio
In theBanawa is not an ascendants, descendants, parent-in-law, or close collateral relative. As a " spouse",
same civil action for declaration of nullity, the guilt may be proved by mere preponderance of evidence.
he could not donate. As a non-spouse, there is no express consent of the donee's legitimate husband. The
(Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Vol. II, p. 625 Eight Edition, 1975). The nullity of the donations
finding
wasof the loeer Court that silence of Eusebio Potestas may,be considered implied consent is error.
raised squarely in the defendants' answer. There is nothing in the records to even remotely suggest 5hat Potestas knew about the donation, much
less consented to it. It is true that Article 144 prohibits donations to the wife without the husband's consent
There is another reason, moreover, why the donations should be invalidated. The case for Dominga to Fiel
avoidis suspicion and scandal. While there can be no suspicion or scandal in this case, the fact remains
built around her relationship with Natalio Banawa. The two were almost like husband and wife except thatthat
the donations will form part of the conjugal partnership of the estranged and legitimate Potestas
they were never married and could not have contracted a marriage even if they wanted to dospouses. so. The At any rate, even if we disregard this point raised by the appellants, the donation ls,are still void
ruling of Buenaventura v. Bautista (50 O.G. No. 8, p. 3679, August, 1954) applies to them. This because
Court of the reason,earlier mentioned.
speaking through Justice J.B.L. Reyes ruled:
The fourth assignment of error is a mere consiquence of the other assigned errors.
While article 1335 speaks of spouses, still, if the policy of the law is, as,it has always been, to
prohibit donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear ofThe undue
appelle raised her own assignment of error in hr brief. The records do not show that she appealed
and improper pressure and influence upon the donor., a prejudice deeply rooted in ourfrom ancientthe judgement of the lower Court. We, therefore, disregard it.
law; "porque no se enganen despohandose el uno al otro por amor que han de consuno," started
the parties (Part. IV, Tit. XI, Law IV), restating the rationale "No mutuato amore Wherefore, invicen the judgement of the lower Court is hereby modified to conclude the portion of Lot No. 5197,
spoliarentur" of the pandects (Bk. 24, Tit. 1, De donat, inter virum et uxorem); then thereC-5
is every
mentioned in Paragraph One and the lot and house mentioned in Paragraph three of the agreement
reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons living together as husband and of partition
wife among he properties owned in co-ownership by Dominga Fiel and Natalio Banawa. in all,other
without benefit of nuptials. For it is not to be doubted that assent to such irregular connection
respects,
for the judgement appealed from is hereby affirmed. No costs.
thirty years bespeaks greater influence of one party over the other, to that the law, seeks to avoid
is correspondingly increased. Moreover, as already pointed out by Ulpian (in his lib.Judgement 32 ad modifed.
Sabinum, fr. 1), "it would not subsist, less 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 Gaviola,
and Jr. And Paras, JJ., concur.
morality alike demand that the disabilities attached to marriage should likewise attach to
concubinage. SO ORDERED.

We find the donation upon which the donee (plaintiff) premises his cause of action not
________________________
only
unauthenticated, but null and void as contrary to the public policy.
Footnote