Scribd
Upload
109 views2 pages

ARCABA, Petitioner vs. TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, Defendant

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring void the donation inter vivos of a portion of land from Francisco to Cirila. 2. Francisco and Cirila lived together for many years, with evidence suggesting they shared a room and bedroom and that Francisco introduced Cirila as his mistress. 3. Cirila also used Francisco's surname in official documents, indicating they held themselves out as husband and wife. 4. Based on the preponderance of evidence, the Supreme Court ruled Cirila was Francisco's common-law wife, making the donation between them void under Article 87 of the Family Code.

Uploaded by

Quiqui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
109 views2 pages

ARCABA, Petitioner vs. TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, Defendant

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring void the donation inter vivos of a portion of land from Francisco to Cirila. 2. Francisco and Cirila lived together for many years, with evidence suggesting they shared a room and bedroom and that Francisco introduced Cirila as his mistress. 3. Cirila also used Francisco's surname in official documents, indicating they held themselves out as husband and wife. 4. Based on the preponderance of evidence, the Supreme Court ruled Cirila was Francisco's common-law wife, making the donation between them void under Article 87 of the Family Code.

Uploaded by

Quiqui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1. ARCABA, petitioner vs. TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, defendant.

G. R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001

TOPIC: Donations Between Husband and Wife During Marriage and Common Law Spouses, Void (
Article 87)

FACTS:
 Petitioner, Cirila, petitioned for the reversal of CA decision, declaring the donation inter vivos void.
 In 1956, Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became registered owners of a lot. After
the death of Zosima in 1980, Francisco and his mother-in-law, Juliana Montallana executed a deed of
extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights. Juliana waived her 1/4th share of the property to
Francisco and Francisco registered the lot in his name with the Registry of Deeds.
 Having no children, Francisco asked his nieces Leticia and Luzviminda, and petitioner Cirila Arcaba,
then a widow, to take of the house and the store inside.
 When Leticia and Luzviminda were married, only Cirila was left to take care of Francisco and the
house.
 He did not pay Cirila a regular cash wage as a house helper, though he provided her family with food
and lodging.
 There are disputes regarding the relationship of Francisco and Cirila
 A few months before his death, Francisco executed an instrument of “Deed of Donation Inter Vivos”
which ceded a portion of the lot to Cirila who accepted the donation. The deed stated that the
donation was being made in consideration of “the faithful services” Cirila has rendered over the past
10 years.
 Francisco then died in 1991
 Respondents who are the nieces and nephews of Francisco and his heirs by intestate succession filed
a complaint for the declaration of nullity of the deed of donation alleging that Cirila was the common
law wife of Francisco therefore making the donation void under Article 87

ISSUE:
 WON the evidence proved that Cirila was the common law wife of Francisco thereby making the
donation void under Article 87
RULING: (of the Supreme Court)

 Petition DENIED. CA decision declaring the donation void AFFIRMED.


 Article 87 states that donations between husband and wife during the marriage, except moderate
donations, shall be void. This prohibition also applies to persons living together as husband and wife
without a valid marriage
 Evidences that support the notion that Cirila was the common law wife of Francisco were:
 Testimonies of the nieces stating that Cirila and Francisco shared a room in the house. Thus, it is
possible that they have consummated the relationship.
 Niece’s testimony that Francisco told her that Cirila was his mistress
 Cirila used Francisco’s surname “Comille” in some of the documents she signed namely:
Application for business permit, sanitary permit, and death certificate of Francisco/
 Cirila did not demand regular cash wage indicating that she was not a mere caregiver-employee.
 The court stated that by the evidence presented it is difficult to believe that Cirila stayed with
Francisco out of pure beneficence. Human reason would thus lead to the conclusion that she was
Francisco’s common-law spouse.
 By preponderance of evidence the court ruled that Cirila was the common law wife of Francisco and
thus the donation was void by virtue of Article 87 of the Family Code.

You might also like