1. Conchita Liguez filed a complaint to recover a 51.84 hectare parcel of land that was donated to her by deed of donation by Salvador Lopez when she was 16 years old.
2. The Court of Appeals invalidated the deed, finding it was made to induce Conchita to cohabit with Salvador and was therefore based on an illegal cause.
3. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that while the donation was based on an illegal cause, the parties were not equally at fault given their ages and circumstances. It ruled the donation was valid except to the extent it prejudiced the rights of Salvador's widow or forced heirs.
1. Conchita Liguez filed a complaint to recover a 51.84 hectare parcel of land that was donated to her by deed of donation by Salvador Lopez when she was 16 years old.
2. The Court of Appeals invalidated the deed, finding it was made to induce Conchita to cohabit with Salvador and was therefore based on an illegal cause.
3. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that while the donation was based on an illegal cause, the parties were not equally at fault given their ages and circumstances. It ruled the donation was valid except to the extent it prejudiced the rights of Salvador's widow or forced heirs.
1. Conchita Liguez filed a complaint to recover a 51.84 hectare parcel of land that was donated to her by deed of donation by Salvador Lopez when she was 16 years old.
2. The Court of Appeals invalidated the deed, finding it was made to induce Conchita to cohabit with Salvador and was therefore based on an illegal cause.
3. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that while the donation was based on an illegal cause, the parties were not equally at fault given their ages and circumstances. It ruled the donation was valid except to the extent it prejudiced the rights of Salvador's widow or forced heirs.
PETITIONER: Conchita Liguez RESPONDENT: CA, Maria Ngo, et al. SUMMARY: Through a deed of donation, Salvador Lopez donated a parcel of land to Conchita Liguez, who was then 16. In an action commenced by Conchita to recover the same, the CA found that the deed was null and void for having an illegal causa and for Salvadors lack of right to donate conjugal property. This was based upon the finding that Salvador donated the land in order to cohabit with and have sexual relations with Conchita. The CA also rejected the claim based on the in pari delicto rule. The SC found that the conveyance was indeed predicated on an illegal causa. However, the pari delicto rule does not apply since at the time of the donation, Salvador was a man advanced in years and Conchita was only 16. Furthermore, Salvadors forced heirs are barred from invoking the illegality of the causa, and are thereby only entitled to a declaration of the donation as inofficious. DOCTRINE: 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.
A donation with illegal causa may produce effects under certain circumstances where the parties are not of equal guilt.
FACTS: of the widow Maria Ngo in the conjugal partnership or the
1. Conchita Liguez filed a complaint against the widow and legitimes of Salvadors forced heirs. The records are remanded to heirs of Salvador Lopez to recover a parcel of 51.84 the court of origin for further proceedings. hectares of land in Davao. She averred to be its legal owner, pursuant to a deed of donation executed in her favor by RATIO: Salvador. 1. Under the cited Art. 1274, liberality of the donor is deemed 2. At the time the deed was executed, Conchita was 16. She causa only in contracts that are of pure beneficence, or had also been living with Salvadors parents for barely a contracts designed solely and exclusively to procure the month. welfare of the beneficiary, without any intent of 3. The deed of donation recites that the donor Salvador, for producing any satisfaction for the donor. and in consideration of his love and affection for Conchita, 2. In this case, Salvador was not moved exclusively by the and also for the good and valuable services rendered to desire to benefit Conchita, but also to secure her cohabiting [Salvador] by [Conchita], does by these presents, with him, and so that he could gratify his sexual impulses. voluntarily give, grant and donate This is clear from Salvadors confession to two witnesses 4. The donation was made in view of Salvadors desire to have that he was in love with her. sexual relations with Conchita. Furthermore, Conchitas 3. Lopez would not have conveyed the property in question had parents would not allow Conchita to live with him unless he he known that Conchita would refuse to cohabit with him. first donated the subject land. The cohabitation was an implied condition to the donation 5. The donated land originally belonged to the conjugal and being unlawful, necessarily tainted the donation. partnership of Salvador and his wife, Maria Ngo. 4. Therefore, the donation was but one part of an onerous 6. CA: The deed of donation was inoperative, and null and transaction (with Conchitas parents) that must be viewed in void because: its totality. a. Lopez had no right to donate conjugal property 5. The CA erred in applying the pari delicto rule. The facts to Conchita; are more suggestive of seduction than of immoral bargaining. b. The donation was tainted with illegal causa or a. It cannot be said that both parties had equal consideration. guilt. Salvador was a man advanced in years 7. The CA also rejected Conchitas claim based on the rule in and mature experience, and Conchita was only pari delicto non oritur actio, as embodied in Art. 1306 of 16 when the donation was made. the 1889 Civil Code (as reproduced in Art. 1412 in the new b. The CA did not find that she was fully aware of Civil Code). the terms of the bargain entered into by her 8. Conchita: under Art. 1274 (of the 1889 Civil Code), in parents. contracts of pure beneficence the consideration is the c. Her acceptance of the deed does not imply liberality of the donor, and liberality per se can never be knowledge of conditions and terms not set forth illegal, since it is neither against law or morals or public therein. policy. d. Witnesses testified that it was Conchitas parents who insisted on the donation. ISSUE/S: 6. The rule that parties to an illegal contract, if equally 1. WON the conveyance was predicated on illegal causa YES guilty, will not be aided by the law but will both be left 2. WON the in pari delicto rule applies NO where it finds them, has been interpreted by this Court as 3. WON the alienation of conjugal property was void only barring the party from pleading the illegality of the insofar as it prejudices Maria Ngo bargain either as a cause of action or as a defense. But where the plaintiff can establish a cause of action without RULING: Decisions appealed from reversed and set aside. exposing its illegality, the vice does not affect the right to Conchita Liguez entitled to so much of the donated property as recover. may be found, upon proper liquidation, not to prejudice the share 7. Applied to the case: Conchita seeks recovery of the land based on the strength of a donation regular on its face. To of his estate. However, only the court of origin has the defeat its effect, the heirs must plead and prove that the same requisite data to determine whether or not it is inofficious. is illegal, which they cannot do, since Lopez himself, if 11. Re: improvements in the land governed by rules of living, would be barred from setting up that plea. accession and possession in good faith, since Maria and 8. Lopez could not donate the entirety of the property to the Salvadors heirs were unaware of the donation to Conchita prejudice of his wife. The donation is void only insofar as when the improvements were made. it prejudices the interest of his wife. 12. Re: laches Conchita only enforced her right as donee in a. FC 1409: The conjugal partnership can be charged 1951. But the Court highlights that in 1943, she was still anything given or promised by the husband in order to sixteen; she only reached the age of majority in 1948. Her obtain employment for his children, or give them a action 1951 was only delayed three years. Furthermore, she profession. couldnt have intervened in Salvadors estate proceedings b. 1415: The husband may dispose of the property of the because she was a minor for its great part. Also, the donation conjugal partnership for purposes in Art. 1409. did not make her a creditor of the estate. c. 1413: The husband may for a valuable consideration 13. A donation with illegal causa may produce effects under alienate and encumber the property of the conjugal certain circumstances where the parties are not of equal partnership without the consent of the wife. guilt. 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 husbands 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 Salvadors estate. 10. Salvadors 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
09 A.M. No. R-177-Mtj September 24, 1986 - Zenaida C. Salvador v. Bienvenido S. Salamanca: September 1986 - Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence - Chanrobles Virtual Law Library