Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Agapay Vs Palang

    Uploaded by

    Jamie Jovellanos
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The properties purchased during Miguel's second marriage to Erlinda cannot be granted to her since their marriage was void as Miguel's first marriage to Carlina was still valid. 2) Erlinda failed to prove that she actually contributed money to purchase the agricultural land and house, as required by law for co-ownership of properties under a void marriage. 3) The transaction treating the properties as donations from Miguel to Erlinda was also void under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Agapay Vs Palang

    Uploaded by

    Jamie Jovellanos
    80 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The properties purchased during Miguel's second marriage to Erlinda cannot be granted to her since their marriage was void as Miguel's first marriage to Carlina was still valid. 2) Erlinda failed to prove that she actually contributed money to purchase the agricultural land and house, as required by law for co-ownership of properties under a void marriage. 3) The transaction treating the properties as donations from Miguel to Erlinda was also void under the law.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Agapay vs Palang

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The properties purchased during Miguel's second marriage to Erlinda cannot be granted to her since their marriage was void as Miguel's first marriage to Carlina was still valid. 2) Erlinda failed to prove that she actually contributed money to purchase the agricultural land and house, as required by law for co-ownership of properties under a void marriage. 3) The transaction treating the properties as donations from Miguel to Erlinda was also void under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views2 pages

    Agapay Vs Palang

    Uploaded by

    Jamie Jovellanos
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The properties purchased during Miguel's second marriage to Erlinda cannot be granted to her since their marriage was void as Miguel's first marriage to Carlina was still valid. 2) Erlinda failed to prove that she actually contributed money to purchase the agricultural land and house, as required by law for co-ownership of properties under a void marriage. 3) The transaction treating the properties as donations from Miguel to Erlinda was also void under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    AGAPAY vs.

    PALANG

    G.R. No. 116668 July 28 1997

    FACTS:

    Miguel Palang married Calina Vellesterol with whom he had 1 child. He then contracted his
    second marriage with Erlinda Agapay, with whom he had a son. The couple purchased a parcel of
    agricultural land and the transfer certificate was issued in their names. She also purchased a house and
    lot in Binalonan, where the property was later issued in her name. Miguel and Carlina executed a Deed
    of Donation, wherein they agreed to donate their conjugal property consisting of 6 parcels of land to
    their only child, Herminia. Carlina filed a complaint against Miguel and Erlinda for bigamy.

    Miguel died, and Carlina and Herminia instituted an action for recovery of ownership and
    possession with damages against Erlinda. They sought to get back the riceland and house and lot
    allegedly bought by Miguel during his cohabitation with Erlinda. RTC dismissed the complaint and
    ordered the respondents to provide for the intestate shares of the parties, particularly of Erlinda's son.
    CA reversed the trial court's decision.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the properties from Miguel's second marriage be granted to Erlinda.

    RULING:

    No. SC held that the agricultural land and house and land cannot be granted to Erlinda.

    The sale of the riceland was made in favor of Miguel and Erlinda. The provision of law applicable
    here is Article 148 of the Family Code providing for cases of cohabitation when a man and a woman who
    are not capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the
    benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. The marriage of Miguel and Erlinda was null and void
    because the earlier marriage of Miguel and Carlina was still subsisting and unaffected by the latter's de
    facto separation.

    Under Article 148, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint
    contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their
    respective contributions. It must be stressed that actual contribution is required by this provision, in
    contrast to Article 147 which states that efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and
    household, are regarded as contributions to the acquisition of common property by one who has no
    salary or income or work or industry. If the actual contribution of the party is not proved, there will be
    no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares.
    In the case at bar, Erlinda tried to establish by her testimony that she is engaged in the business
    of buy and sell and had a sari-sari store but failed to persuade SC that she actually contributed money to
    buy the subject riceland. Worth noting is the fact that on the date of conveyance, when she was only
    around 20 of age and Miguel Palang was already 64 and a pensioner of the U.S. Government.
    Considering her youthfulness, it is unrealistic to conclude that she contributed P3,750.00 as her share in
    the purchase price of subject property, there being no proof of the same.

    With respect to the house and lot, Erlinda allegedly bought the same for P20,000.00 when she
    was only 22 years old. The testimony of the notary public who prepared the deed of conveyance for the
    property testified that Miguel Palang provided the money for the purchase price and directed that
    Erlindas name alone be placed as the vendee.

    Since Erlinda failed to prove that she contributed money to the purchase price of the riceland,
    we find no basis to justify her co-ownership with Miguel over the same. Consequently, the riceland
    should, as correctly held by the CA, revert to the conjugal partnership property of the deceased Miguel
    and Carlina Palang.

    The transaction was properly a donation made by Miguel to Erlinda was void. Article 87 of the
    Family Code expressly provides that the prohibition against donations between spouses now applies to
    donations between persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, for otherwise,
    the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union.

    As regards to the donation of their conjugal property executed by Miguel and Carlina in favor of
    their daughter, was also void. Separation of property between spouses during the marriage shall not take
    place except by judicial order or without judicial conferment when there is an express stipulation in the
    marriage settlements. The judgment which resulted from the parties compromise was not specifically
    and expressly for separation of property and should not be so inferred.

    You might also like