19. Liguez vs.

CA (102 Phil 577)

FACTS:

1. Conchita Liguez filed a complaint against the widow and heirs of Salvador Lopez to recover a
parcel of 51.84 hectares of land in Davao. She averred to be its legal owner, pursuant to a deed
of donation executed in her favor by Salvador.

2. At the time the deed was executed, Conchita was 16. She had also been living with Salvador’s
parents for barely a month.

3. The deed of donation recites that the donor Salvador, “for and in consideration of his love and
affection” for Conchita, and “also for the good and valuable services rendered to [Salvador] by
[Conchita], does by these presents, voluntarily give, grant and donate…”

4. The donation was made in view of Salvador’s desire to have sexual relations with Conchita.
Furthermore, Conchita’s parents would not allow Conchita to live with him unless he first
donated the subject land.

5. The donated land originally belonged to the conjugal partnership of Salvador and his wife, Maria
Ngo.

6. CA: The deed of donation was inoperative, and null and void because:

a. Lopez had no right to donate conjugal property to Conchita;

b. The donation was tainted with illegal causa or consideration.

7. The CA also rejected Conchita’s claim based on the rule “in pari delicto non oritur actio,” as
embodied in Art. 1306 of the 1889 Civil Code (as reproduced in Art. 1412 in the new Civil Code).

8. Conchita: under Art. 1274 (of the 1889 Civil Code), “in contracts of pure beneficence the
consideration is the liberality of the donor,” and liberality per se can never be illegal, since it is
neither against law or morals or public policy.

ISSUE/S:

1. WON the conveyance was predicated on illegal causa – YES

2. WON the in pari delicto rule applies – NO

3. WON the alienation of conjugal property was void – only insofar as it prejudices Maria Ngo

RULING: Decisions appealed from reversed and set aside. Conchita Liguez entitled to so much of the
donated property as may be found, upon proper liquidation, not to prejudice the share of the
widow Maria Ngo in the conjugal partnership or the legitimes of Salvador’s forced heirs. The
records are remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.
RATIO:

1. Under the cited Art. 1274, liberality of the donor is deemed causa only in contracts that are of
“pure” beneficence, or contracts designed solely and exclusively to procure the welfare of the
beneficiary, without any intent of producing any satisfaction for

the donor.

2. In this case, Salvador was not moved exclusively by the desire to benefit Conchita, but also to
secure her cohabiting with him, and so that he could gratify his sexual impulses. This is clear
from Salvador’s confession to two witnesses that he was in love with her.

3. Lopez would not have conveyed the property in question had he known that Conchita would
refuse to cohabit with him. The cohabitation was an implied condition to the donation and being
unlawful, necessarily tainted the donation.

4. Therefore, the donation was but one part of an onerous transaction (with Conchita’s parents) that
must be viewed in its totality.

5. The CA erred in applying the pari delicto rule. The facts are more suggestive of seduction than of
immoral bargaining.

a. It cannot be said that both parties had equal guilt. Salvador was a man advanced in years and
mature experience, and Conchita was only 16 when the donation was made.

b. The CA did not find that she was fully aware of the terms of the bargain entered into by her
parents.

c. Her acceptance of the deed does not imply knowledge of conditions and terms not set forth
therein.

d. Witnesses testified that it was Conchita’s parents who insisted on the donation.

6. The rule that parties to an illegal contract, if equally guilty, will not be aided by the law but will
both be left where it finds them, has been interpreted by this Court as barring the party from
pleading the illegality of the bargain either as a cause of action or as a defense. But where the
plaintiff can establish a cause of action without exposing its illegality, the vice does not affect
the right to recover.

7. Applied to the case: Conchita seeks recovery of the land based on the strength of a donation
regular on its face. To defeat its effect, the heirs must plead and prove that the same is illegal,
which they cannot do, since Lopez himself, if living, would be barred from setting up that plea.

8. Lopez could not donate the entirety of the property to the prejudice of his wife. The donation is
void only insofar as it prejudices the interest of his wife.
a. FC 1409: The conjugal partnership can be charged anything given or promised by the husband in
order to obtain employment for his children, or give them a profession.

b. 1415: The husband may dispose of the property of the conjugal partnership for purposes in Art.
1409.

c. 1413: The husband may for a valuable consideration alienate and encumber the property of the
conjugal partnership without the consent of the wife.

9. To determine the prejudice to the widow, it must be shown that the value of her share in the
property donated cannot be paid out of the husband’s share of the community profits.
However, the requisite data are not available to the court. The records need to be remanded to
the court of origin that settled Salvador’s estate.

10. Salvador’s forced heirs cannot invoke the illegality of the donation, but are entitled to have the
donation set aside insofar as inofficious, based on their rights to a legitime out of his estate.
However, only the court of origin has the requisite data to determine whether or not it is
inofficious.

11. Re: improvements in the land – governed by rules of accession and possession in good faith,
since Maria and Salvador’s heirs were unaware of the donation to Conchita when the
improvements were made.

12. Re: laches – Conchita only enforced her right as donee in 1951. But the Court highlights that in
1943, she was still sixteen; she only reached the age of majority in 1948. Her action 1951 was
only delayed three years. Furthermore, she couldn’t have intervened in Salvador’s estate
proceedings because she was a minor for its great part. Also, the donation did not make her a
creditor of the estate.

13. A donation with illegal causa may produce effects under certain circumstances where the parties
are not of equal guilt.