MERCEDES CALIMLIM-CANULLAS vs.
FORTUN
GR No. L-57499, June 22, 1984
Melencio-Herrera, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner Mercedes and Fernand Canullas were married and had 5 children. They lived
in a small house on the residential land in question at Bacabac Bugallon, Pangasinan.
After the death of Fernando’s father, they inherited the land.
1978: Fernando abandoned his family and was living with private respondent Corazon
Daguines. During the pendency of this appeal, they were convicted of concubinage by the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, which judgment has become final (1981).
Prior to the final decision in the concubinage case, Fernando sold the subject property with
the house thereon to Corazon for the sum of P2000. In the document of sale, Fernando
described the house as “also inherited by me from my deceased parents.”
1980: Unable to take possession of the lot and house, Corazon initiated a complaint for
quieting of title and damages against Mercedes. The latter resisted and claimed that the
house in dispute where she and her children were residing, including the coconut trees on
the land, were built and planted with conjugal funds and through her industry.
She also claims that the sale of the land together with the house and improvements to
Corazon was null and void because they are conjugal properties and she had not given
her consent to the sale.
Respondent Court of First Instance of Pangasina, Hon. Willelmo Fortun as the judge, ruled
Corazon as the lawful owner of the land in question, as well as the ½ of the house erected
on said land.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the construction of a conjugal house on the exclusive property of the
husband ipso facto gave the land the character of conjugal property.
Whether or not the sale of the lot together with the house and improvements thereon was
valid under the circumstances surrounding the transaction.
HELD:
1st issue
The determination of the first issue revolved around the interpretation to be given to the
2nd paragraph of Art. 158 of the Civil Code: Buildings constructed at the expense of the
partnership during the marriage on land belonging to one of the spouses also pertain to
the partnership, but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the
same.
Under this provision, both the land and the building belong to the conjugal partnership
but the conjugal partnership is indebted to the husband for the value of the land. The
spouse owning the lot becomes a creditor of the conjugal partnership for the value of the
lot, which would be reimbursed at the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.
Respondent Judge relied in the case of Maramba vs. Lozano, where it was held that the
land belonging to one of the spouses, upon which the spouses have built a house, becomes
conjugal property only when conjugal property is liquidated and indemnity paid to the
owner of the land.
However the court believes that the better rule is that enunciated by Mr. Justice JBL Reyes
in Padilla vs. Paterno:
o The conversion of the properties from paraphernal to conjugal assets would be
deemed to retroact to the time the conjugal buildings were first constructed thereon
or at the very latest, to the time immediately before the death of Narciso Padilla that
ended the conjugal partnership. The can not be considered to have become conjugal
property only as of the time their values were paid to the estate of the widow
Concepcion Paterno because by that time the conjugal partnership no longer existed
and it could not acquire the ownership of said properties. The acquisition by the
partnership of these properties was, under the 1943 decision, subject to the
suspensive condition that their values would be reimbursed to the widow at the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership; once paid, the effects of the fulfillment of
the condition should be deemed to retroact to the date the obligation was
constituted.
Hence, Fernando could not have alienated the house and lot to Corazon since Mercedes
has not given her consent to said sale.
2nd issue:
Sale was null and void for being contrary to morals and public policy. The sale was
made by a husband in favor of a concubine after he had abandoned his family and left the
conjugal home where his wife and children lived and from whence they derived their
support. Such sale was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution
which public policy cherishes and protects.
Art. 1409 of Civil Code: Contracts whose cause, object, or purpose is contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy are void and inexistent from the
beginning.
Art. 1352 CC: Contracts without cause, or unlawful cause, produce no effect whatsoever.
The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public
policy.
Thus, the law prohibits the spouses from selling property to each other subject to certain
exceptions. Similarly, donations between spouses during marriage are prohibited, because
if transfers or con conveyances between spouses were allowed during marriage, that would
destroy the system of conjugal partnership, a basic policy in civil law.
It was also designed to prevent the exercise of undue influence by one spouse over the
other, as well as to protect the institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of family
law.
The prohibitions apply to couple living as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage, otherwise the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better
than those in legal union.
