Arcaba vs. Tabancura Vda. De BatocaelG.R. No. 146683 November 22, 2001

Facts:Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became the registered owners of two lots inZamboanga del Norte. After the death of Zosima, Francisco and his mother-in-law executed a deed of extrajudicialpartition with waiver of rights, in which the latter waived her ¼ share of the property. Thereafter, Franciscoregistered the lot in his name. Having no children to take care of him after his retirement, Francisco asked hisniece Leticia, the latter’s cousin Luzviminda and petitioner Cirila Arcaba, to take care of his house and store.Conflicting testimonies were offered as to the nature of the relationship between Cirila and Francisco.Leticia said that the previous party was lovers since they slept in the same room while Erlinda claimed thatFrancisco told her that Cirila was his mistress. On the other hand, Cirila said she was mere helper and thatFrancisco was too old for her.A few months before Francisco’s death, he executed an instrument denominated “Deed of DonationInter Vivos” in which he ceded a portion of the lot together with is house to Cirila, who accepted the donation in the same instrument. The deed stated that the donation was being made in consideration of the “faithful servicesshe had rendered over the past ten years.” Thereafter, Francisco died and the respondents filed a complaintagainst Cirila for declaration of nullity of a deed of donation inter vivos, recovery of possession and damages.Respondents, who are nieces, nephews and heirs by intestate succession of Francisco, alleged that Cirila was thecommon-law wife of Francisco and the donation inert vivos is void under Article 87 of the Family Code.

Issue:Whether or not the deed of donation inter vivos executed by the late Francisco Comille be declared void underArticle 87 of the Family Code.

Ruling:Where it has been established by preponderance of evidence that two persons lived together as husbandand wife without a valid marriage, the inescapable conclusion is that the donation made by one in favor of theother is void under Article 87 of the Family Code.Therefore, respondents having proven by preponderance of evidence that Cirila and Francisco livedtogether as husband and wife without a valid marriage, the donation inter vivos is considered null and void.

Arcaba vs. Tabancura Vda De Batocael

FACTS:Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became the registered owners of Lot No. 437-A located at Balintawak St. and Rizal Avenue in Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte in January 1956. Zosima died in 1980 hence Francisco and his mother in law executed a deed of extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights, where the latter waived her share consisting of ¼ of the property in favor of Francisco. Since Francisco do not have any children to take care of him after his retirement, he asked Leticia, his niece, Leticia’s cousin, Luzviminda and Cirila Arcaba, the petitioner, who was then a widow and took care of Francisco’s house as well as the store inside.

According to Leticia, Francisco and Cirila were lovers since they slept in the same room. On the other hand, Erlinda Tabancura, another niece of Francisco claimed that the latter told her that Cirila was his mistress. However, Cirila defensed herself that she was a mere helper who could enter the master’s bedroom when Francisco asked her to and that Francisco was too old for her. She denied having sexual intercourse with Francisco. When the nieces got married, Cirila who was then 34 year-old widow started working for Francisco who was 75 year old widower. The latter did not pay him any wages as househelper though her family was provided with food and lodging. Francisco’s health deteriorated and became bedridden. Tabancura testified that Francisco’s only source of income was the rentals from his lot near the public streets.

In January 1991, few months before Francisco died, he executed a “Deed of Donation Inter Vivos” where he ceded a portion of Lot 437-A composed of 150 sq m., together with his house to Cirila who accepted the same. The larger portion of 268 sq m. was left under his name. This was made in consideration of the 10 year of faithful services of the petitioner. Atty Lacaya notarized the deed and was later registered by Cirila as its absolute owner.

In Octoer 1991, Francisco died and in 1993, the lot received by Cirila had a market value of P57,105 and assessed value of P28,550. The decedent’s nephews and nieces and his heirs by intestate succession alleged that Cirila was the common-law wife of Francisco.

ISSUE:Whether or not the deed of donation inter vivos executed by Francisco in Arcaba’s favor was valid.

HELD:The court in this case considered a sufficient proof of common law relationship wherein donation is not valid. The conclusion was based on the testimony of Tabancura and certain documents bearing the signature of “Cirila Comille” such as application for business permit, sanitary permit and the death certificate of Francisco. Also, the fact that Cirila did not demand her wages is an indication that she was not simply a caregiver –employee.

Cohabitation means more than sexual intercourse, especially when one of the parties is already old and may no longer be interested in sex at the very least, cohabitation is a public assumption of men and women holding themselves out to the public as such.

Hence, the deed of donation by Francisco in favor of Cirila is void under Art. 87 of the Family Code.

Arcaba vs. Tabancura Vda. De Batocael Case DigestArcaba vs. Tabancura Vda. De Batocael G.R. No. 146683 November 22, 2001 

Facts: Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became the registered owners of two lots in Zamboanga del Norte. After the death of Zosima, Francisco and his mother-in-law executed a deed of extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights, in which the latter waived her ¼ share of the property. Thereafter, Francisco registered the lot in his name. Having no children to take care of him after his retirement, Francisco asked his niece Leticia, the latter’s cousin Luzviminda and petitioner Cirila Arcaba, to take care of his house and store. 

Conflicting testimonies were offered as to the nature of the relationship between Cirila and Francisco. Leticia said that the previous party was lovers since they slept in the same room while Erlinda claimed that Francisco told her that Cirila was his mistress. On the other hand, Cirila said she was mere helper and that Francisco was too old for her. 

A few months before Francisco’s death, he executed an instrument denominated “Deed of Donation Inter Vivos” in which he ceded a portion of the lot together with is house to Cirila, who accepted the donation in the same instrument. The deed stated that the donation was being made in consideration of the “faithful services she had rendered over the past ten years.” Thereafter, Francisco died and the respondents filed a complaint against Cirila for declaration of nullity of a deed of donation inter vivos, recovery of possession and damages. Respondents, who are nieces, nephews and heirs by intestate succession of Francisco, alleged that Cirila was the common-law wife of Francisco and the donation inert vivos is void under Article 87 of the Family Code. 

Issue: Whether or not the deed of donation inter vivos executed by the late Francisco Comille be declared void under Article 87 of the Family Code. 

Ruling: Where it has been established by preponderance of evidence that two persons lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, the inescapable conclusion is that the donation made by one in favor of the other is void under Article 87 of the Family Code. 

Therefore, respondents having proven by preponderance of evidence that Cirila and Francisco lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, the donation inter vivos is considered null and void.