Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    Agapay vs. Palang G. R. No. 116668 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Alelie Joy Malazarte
    Miguel Palang was married to Carlina Vallesterol but later married Erlinda Agapay. Miguel and Erlinda purchased agricultural land together and a house in Erlinda's name. After Miguel died, Carlina and her daughter sought ownership of the disputed properties. The Court ruled that Miguel and Erlinda's marriage was void, and the properties were not acquired through their joint contributions as required. The house transaction was actually a donation from Miguel to Erlinda, but was void under law since they were not validly married. The properties were not granted to Erlinda.

    Copyright:

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

    Agapay vs. Palang G. R. No. 116668 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Alelie Joy Malazarte
    21 views1 page
    Miguel Palang was married to Carlina Vallesterol but later married Erlinda Agapay. Miguel and Erlinda purchased agricultural land together and a house in Erlinda's name. After Miguel died, Carlina and her daughter sought ownership of the disputed properties. The Court ruled that Miguel and Erlinda's marriage was void, and the properties were not acquired through their joint contributions as required. The house transaction was actually a donation from Miguel to Erlinda, but was void under law since they were not validly married. The properties were not granted to Erlinda.

    Original Description:

    Agapay v Palang

    Original Title

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Miguel Palang was married to Carlina Vallesterol but later married Erlinda Agapay. Miguel and Erlinda purchased agricultural land together and a house in Erlinda's name. After Miguel died, Carlina and her daughter sought ownership of the disputed properties. The Court ruled that Miguel and Erlinda's marriage was void, and the properties were not acquired through their joint contributions as required. The house transaction was actually a donation from Miguel to Erlinda, but was void under law since they were not validly married. The properties were not granted to Erlinda.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    21 views1 page

    Agapay vs. Palang G. R. No. 116668 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Alelie Joy Malazarte
    Miguel Palang was married to Carlina Vallesterol but later married Erlinda Agapay. Miguel and Erlinda purchased agricultural land together and a house in Erlinda's name. After Miguel died, Carlina and her daughter sought ownership of the disputed properties. The Court ruled that Miguel and Erlinda's marriage was void, and the properties were not acquired through their joint contributions as required. The house transaction was actually a donation from Miguel to Erlinda, but was void under law since they were not validly married. The properties were not granted to Erlinda.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    AGAPAY vs.

    PALANG
    G. R. No. 116668
    FACTS:
    Miguel Palang contracted his first marriage with Carlina Vallesterol on July 16, 1949. On
    July 15, 1973, Miguel Palang contracted his second marriage with Erlinda Agapay.
    Their union produced a son, Kristopher. Miguel and Erlinda purchased a parcel of
    agricultural riceland and the transfer certificate was issued in their names. Erlinda also
    purchased a house and lot in Binalonan, where the property was later issued in her
    name. Miguel Palang died. On July 11, 1981, Carlina and Herminia Palang, daughter of
    Miguel, instituted an action for recovery of ownership and possession over the lands
    against petitioner. Carlina and Herminia sought to recover the riceland and the house
    and lot allegedly bought by Miguel during his cohabitation with Erlinda. The lower court
    dismissed the complaint but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the disputed properties (agricultural riceland and the house and lot) be
    granted in favor of Erlinda Agapay.

    RULING:
    No. The sale of the riceland was made in favor of Miguel and Erlinda. Aside from Miguel
    and Erlinda’s marriage being void because Miguel’s first marriage was still subsisting,
    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. Petitioner failed to prove that she
    contributed money to the purchase price of the riceland. With respect to the house and
    lot, the testimony of the notary public reveals the falsehood of this claim. Miguel Palang
    provided the money and directed Erlinda’s name alone be placed as the vendee. The
    transaction was properly a donation made by Miguel to Erlinda but the same is void and
    inexistent by express provision of law because it was made between persons guilty of
    adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation. Moreover, 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 valid
    marriage.

    You might also like