Subversive to stability

The husband and wife cannot sell property to each other (Article 1490 Civil Code). Does this prohibition apply to the sale made by a husband to his concubine? This is the question raised in this case of Espy and the seven children of Pete and Lina.

Pete got married to Lina way back on December 30, 1947. Both of them at that time were Chinese citizens. During their wedlock and happier times together, they begot seven children, the eldest being Gerry. In 1961, Pete and Lina acquired a 661-square meter property, but being Chinese citizens they registered the property in the name of their aunt, Alicia.

Later on, the relationship between Pete and Lina turned sour and they were estranged. During their separation Pete met Espy and the two started living together as common-law husband and wife although his marriage to Lina and their conjugal partnership has not been dissolved yet.

On May 1, 1993 or 32 years after acquiring the property, their Aunt Alicia executed a deed of sale of the said property in favor of Pete. Five months later or on October 12, 1993, Pete in turn executed a deed of sale of said property in favor of his common law wife Espy. Thus Espy was able to secure a Transfer Certificate of Title of said property in her name.

Gerry and his siblings, Pete’s children, were not aware of said transfer made by their father until the latter died on March 11, 1996. When they discovered that the land had already been transferred in the name of Espy, they sued the latter for recovery of said property praying for the nullification of the deed of sale and the TCT issued in favor of Espy.

Espy however claimed that the property was not a conjugal property of Pete and Lina. Its original owner was Alicia who sold it to Pete and later on Pete sold it to her. In fact Espy claimed that it was her money that was used in the transaction undertaken from Alicia to Pete and then from Pete to her. Was Espy correct?

No. While Pete and Lina have been estranged for years and that he and Espy have in fact been living together as common-law husband and wife, there has never been a judicial decree declaring the dissolution of his marriage to Lina nor their conjugal partnership. So when Pete acquired the subject property from her Aunt Alicia in 1993 during the existence of his marriage to Lina, said property is presumed to belong to their conjugal partnership. Being conjugal property, Pete cannot transfer the same to Espy without Lina’s consent.

Even assuming that the property does not belong to the conjugal partnership, the sale of the same to Espy by Pete cannot be sustained. The law (Article 1490 Civil Code) emphatically prohibits the spouses from selling property to each other 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 prohibition applies to a 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. Since the conveyance in question was made by Pete in favor of his common-law wife, Espy, it was null and void. This contract is 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 and left the conjugal home where his wife and children lived and from whence they derived support. The sale was subversive to the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. Contracts whose cause, object, or purposes are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy are void and inexistent from the very beginning (Ching vs. Goyanko Jr. et.al. G.R. 165879, November 10, 2006).

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]