Arcaba v. Vda. de Batocael (2001)

, .
Issue: WON the donation is null and void making the sale also null and void?
HeldJRatio: NO. TW forgery allegation was IIOt suff"wiemly proven. PetitiOners argue that the deed of donation is
invalid under Art 749 of CC wI requires a public instrument as a requisite fur the validity of domtiom of inunovable
property aoo that ~ person who notarized the deed had no authority to do so. They were not able to prove this
either.
Petitio~rs argue that tOO deed of donation violates tOO prohibition of donations between the spouses during
malTiage in Art 133 of the ok! CC. However, this issue was not raised in ~ trial court. Asswning they did raise this
issue, they still failed to present eviderx:e to show tl1t George aOO Maria got ~d Lastly, petitioners failed to
prove that the Smn-at property was iWeed bought from the proceeds of tlM: Otucan property
Arcaba v. Vda. De Batocael (2001) /
Facts: After the death of Francisco's wife, he and his mother-in-law executed a deed of extrajudicial partition
wherein Juliana waived her share of the subject property to FraJrisco, who later registered the lot in his name. Since
he bad no children, Fnmcisco asked his niece Leticlt and her cowin Luzviminda and petitiomr Cirila to take care of
his house as well as the store inside.
When Leticia aIMl Luzviminda got married, CiriIa was left to take care of FraIisco.. Cirila was a 34-year old
widow and Francisco was a 75-year okl widower when sre worked for him. Francisco did rot pay Cirila regular
cash wage but provided her family wI food and lodging. Before his death in 1991, he executed a Deed of Donation
in which 00 gave a portion of his lot together with his house to CiriJa. The deed stated that the donation is made in
consideration of the "faithful services rendered over the past 10 years." Eventually, the subject property was
registered with Cirila as the absolute owner.
Subsequently; respondents filed a complaint against Cirila for declaration of nullity of deed of donation inter
vivos, recovery of possession, am damages in their capacity as reirs by intestate succession Trey allege that Cirila
was the common-law wife ofFraooisco and that tOO donation was void under: Art. 87 of the FC.
Issue: WON Cirila is the common-law wife of Fr~isco which calls for the application of Art. 87 of the FC?
Held/Ratio: YES. The term cohabitation or living together as husband and wife could also be more than just sex,
especially if one of the parties is already old and may no longer be interested in sex. At the very least, it is the public
assumption of a man and a woman}]8.ving marital relatiom, am dwelling togetlB as rn.m am wife, tOOreby holding
themselves out to the public as such
Cirila admitted she and Francisco resided under one roof for a long time It was possible they consummated their
relationship since Cirila gave Fr~isoo therapeutic massage arxl Leticia said they slept in tl1e same room. Their
public conduct indicated their relatiomhip was more than that of caregiver and patient but that of exclusive partmrs
Documents were also presented rearing Ciri)a's signature ~wing that she saw herself as Frareisco's common-
law wife. The lessees of Francisco's lot refer to her as his common-law wife. She did not demand a regular cash
wage. It is diffiCult to believe that she stayed with him out of pure beneticellCe. SirICe CiriJa was proven to be a
common-law wife, the donation made in her favor is void under Art 87 of the FC.
ssg v. Davac 11966)
Facts: Petronilo DlIVac was fl member of SSS arxJ in his SSS fQrm, he designated respondent Candelaria Davac as
his beneficiary am referred to her as his wife. Upon his death, CarxJelaria and respondent-appellant Lourdes
Tuplano ftIed tOOir claims for death beoofit. wI SSS. It appems from their claims that Petronilo contracted two
marriages. The first was with LourOOs wh> bore him a child ~secoJd was wjtb CaDdelaria who also bore him a
child. Upon due process, SSS awarded the benefits to Candelaria.
Lourdes conteOOs that the designation made to the bigamous marriage is null and void because it Art. 739 of
the New Civil Code declares as void donations made between persons guilty of concubinage, am that it deprives the
lawful wife of her share in the conjugal property as well as of her own aDd her child's legitime in the inheritance.
Issue: WON SSg acted correctly in declaring CandeJaria as ~ person enti1bl to receive the death benefits?
Held/Ratio: YES. Under the applicable law, the beneficiary as recorded by the employee's employer is the one
entitled to the death benefIts.
.3

Arcaba v. Vda. de Batocael (2001)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arcaba v. Vda. de Batocael (2001)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arcaba v. Vda. de Batocael (2001)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

, .

You might also like