Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
GR No. L-57499, June 22, 1984
MERCEDES CALIMLIM-CANULLAS, petitioner
vs.
HON. WILLELMO FORTUN, Judge, Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch I, and CORAZON
DAGUINES, respondents.
Fernandez Law Offices for petitioner.
Francisco Pulido for respondents.

Facts:

On Petition on certiorari assailing the decision, dated October 6, 1980, and the Resolution on
motion for Reconsideration, dated November 27, 1980, of the then court of First Instance of
Pangasinan, Branch 1, in Civil Case No. 15620 entitled “Corazon Daguines vs. Mercedes Calimlim-
Canullas,” upholding the sale of a parcel of land in favor of Daguines but not of the conjugal house
thereon.
Petioner Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas and Fernando Canullas were married on December 19,
1962.
They lived in a small house on the residential land in question.
After Fernando’s father died in 1965, Fernando inherited the land.
In 1978, Fernando abandoned his family and was living with the private respondent Corazon
Daguines. During the pendency of this appeal, they were convicted of concubinage in a judgment
rendered on October 27, 1981.
On April 15, 1980, Fernando sold the subject property with the house thereon to Daguines for the
sum of P2000.00. In the document sale, Fernando described the house as “also inherited by me
from my deceased parents.”
Unable to take possession of the lot and house, Daguines initiated a complaint on June 19, 1980
for quieting of title and damages against Mercedes.
The latter resisted and claimed that the house in dispute where she and her children were
residing, including the coconut trees on the land, were built and planted with conjugal funds and
through her industry; that the sale of the land together with the house and improvements to
Daguines was null and void because they are conjugal properties and she had not given her
consent to the sale.

Issue:

Whether or not the construction of a conjugal house on the exclusive property of the husband
ipso facto gave the land the character of conjugal property.
Whether or not the sale of the lot together with the house and improvements thereon was valid
under the circumstances surrounding the transaction.

Ruling:

The case was ruled in favor of the petitioner on the grounds:

Article 158 of the Civil Code, which reads:

“Building constructed at the expense of the partnership during the marriage on land
belonging to one of the spouses also pertain to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be
reimbursed to the spouse who owns the same.”

Pursuant to the foregoing provision both the land and the building belong to the conjugal
partnership but conjugal partnership is indebted to the husband for the value of the land. The
spouse owning the lot becomes a creditor of the conjugal partnership for the value of the lot,
which value would be reimbursed at the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.

Anent the second issue, the contract of sale was null and void for being contrary to morals and
public policy. The sale was made by a husband in favor of a concubine after he had abandoned
his family and left the conjugal home where his wife and children lived from whence they derived
their support. That sale was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which
public policy cherishes and protects.