Arcaba vs. Tabancura Vda de Batocael (Nov. 22, 2001)
Arcaba vs. Tabancura Vda de Batocael (Nov. 22, 2001)
being predicated on totally incompetent or hearsay evidence, and grounded on mere speculation, conjecture or possibility. (Salazar v. Gutierrez, 33
SCRA 243 and other cases; cited in Quiason, Philippine Courts and their J urisdictions, 1993 ed., p. 604)
(b) The Court of Appeals erred in shifting the burden of evidence from the plaintiff to defendant. (Bunyi v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 504; Quiason, id.)
(c) The Court of Appeals decided the case in away probably not in accord with law or with the applicable jurisprudence in Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 20
SCRA 908, and Liguez v. CA, 102 Phil. 577, 584.26
The issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Art. 87 of the Family Code to the circumstances of this case. After a review of
the records, we rule in the affirmative.
The general rule is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, subject only to certain
exceptions: (a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (c) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts; (e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the
same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial
court; (h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) when the finding of fact of the
Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record; and G) when the Court of Appeals
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.27 It
appearing that the Court of Appeals based its findings on evidence presented by both parties, the general rule should apply.
In Bitangcor v. Tan,28 we held that the term "cohabitation" or "living together as husband and wife" means not only residing under one roof, but also
having repeated sexual intercourse. Cohabitation, of course, 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 public assumption by a man and a woman of the marital relation, and
dwelling together as man and wife, thereby holding themselves out to the public as such. Secret meetings or nights clandestinely spent together,
even if often repeated, do not constitute such kind of cohabitation; they are merely meretricious.29 In this jurisdiction, this Court has considered as
sufficient proof of common-law relationship the stipulations between the parties,30 a conviction of concubinage,31 or the existence of legitimate
children.32
Was Cirila Francisco's employee or his common-law wife? Cirila admitted that she and Francisco resided under one roof for a long time, It is very
possible that the two consummated their relationship, since Cirila gave Francisco therapeutic massage and Leticia said they slept in the same
bedroom. At the very least, their public conduct indicated that theirs was not just a relationship of caregiver and patient, but that of exclusive partners
akin to husband and wife.
Aside from Erlinda Tabancura's testimony that her uncle told her that Cirila was his mistress, there are other indications that Cirila and Francisco
were common-law spouses. Seigfredo Tabancura presented documents apparently signed by Cirila using the surname "Comille." As previously
stated, these are an application for a business permit to operate as a real estate lessor,33 a sanitary permit to operate as real estate lessor with a
health certificate,34 and the death certificate of Francisco.35 These documents show that Cirila saw herself as Francisco's common-law wife,
otherwise, she would not have used his last name. Similarly, in the answer filed by Francisco's lessees in "Erlinda Tabancura, et al. vs. Gracia
Adriatico Sy and Antonio Sy," RTC Civil Case No.4719 (for collection of rentals), these lessees referred to Cirila as "the common-law spouse of
Francisco." Finally, the fact that Cirila did not demand from Francisco a regular cash wage is an indication that she was not simply a caregiveremployee, but Francisco's common law spouse. She was, after all, entitled to a regular cash wage under the law.36 It is difficult to believe that she
stayed with Francisco and served him out of pure beneficence. Human reason would thus lead to the conclusion that she was Francisco's commonlaw spouse.
Respondents having proven by a preponderance of evidence that Cirila and Francisco lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage,
the inescapable conclusion is that the donation made by Francisco in favor of Cirila is void under Art. 87 of the Family Code.1wphi1.nt
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena, De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Per Associate Justice Bernardo Salas and concurred in by Associate Justices
Presbiterio Velasco, Jr. and Edgardo Cruz.
2 Per Judge Wilfredo C. Martinez.
3 Per Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Teodoro Regino and Presbitero Velasco, Jr.
4 Exh. A; Records, p. 66.
5 Exh. D; id., p. 71.
6 Exhs. E & 3; id., pp. 73, 102.
7 Also called "Letitia," "Letecia," and "Leticia Belosillo."
8 Also known as "Luzminda."
9 TSN (Leticia Bellosillo), pp. 12-15, Sept. 27,1994; TSN (Cirila Arcaba), p. 8, Aug. 14,
1994.
10 TSN (Leticia Bellosillo), p. 14, Sept. 27, 1994.
11 Also known as "Erlinda Tabangcura Vda. de Batocael."
12 TSN (Erlinda Tabancura), p. 17, Apri128, 1994.
13 TSN (Cirila Arcaba), p. 11, Aug. 14, 1996.
14 TSN (Leticia Bellosillo), pp. 14-16, Sept. 27, 1994.
15 TSN (Cirila Arcaba), p. 8, Aug. 14, 1996.
16 Id., p. 10; Rollo, p. 33.
17 TSN (Erlinda Tabancura), p. 12, Apri128, 1994; TSN (Cirila Arcaba), p. 8, Aug. 14,
1994.
18 TSN (Erlinda Tabancura), p. 9, Aug. 14, 1996.