G.R. No. 146683 November 22, 2001
CIRILA ARCABA, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The late Francisco Comille, a widower without children, owned a 418-square meter lot in Dipolog City. Petitioner Cirila Arcaba, a widow, began caring for Francisco in his old age, residing in his home. On January 24, 1991, Francisco executed a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos in favor of Arcaba, conveying a 150-square meter portion of his lot and his house, citing her “faithful services” over ten years. Francisco died months later. His heirs by intestate succession, respondents herein, filed a complaint to declare the donation void.
Respondents alleged that Arcaba was Francisco’s common-law wife, rendering the donation void under Article 87 of the Family Code, which prohibits donations between spouses or persons cohabiting without a valid marriage. The trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, found the donation null and void. The courts based their conclusion on testimonial evidence that the two lived together as a couple and documentary evidence showing Arcaba used the surname “Comille” in business permits, a sanitary permit, and Francisco’s death certificate.

ISSUE

Whether the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos executed by Francisco Comille in favor of Cirila Arcaba is void under Article 87 of the Family Code.

RULING

Yes, the donation is void. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ findings that Arcaba and Comille lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. The prohibition in Article 87 of the Family Code aims to prevent undue influence and exploitation between persons in a marital or quasi-marital relationship. The Court found the totality of evidence sufficient to establish their common-law relationship. This evidence included the testimonies of witnesses regarding their cohabitation, Arcaba’s use of the surname “Comille” in official documents, and the fact that she did not receive a regular wage for her services, which was inconsistent with a mere employer-helper relationship. The donation, being a gratuitous advantage given by one party in such a prohibited relationship to the other, is expressly declared void by law. The consideration of “faithful services” stated in the deed does not alter its gratuitous character nor remove it from the ambit of the prohibition. Therefore, the legal logic is straightforward: a proven common-law relationship triggers the application of Article 87, which nullifies any donation between the parties. The Court upheld the lower courts’ factual findings, which are generally binding unless shown to be grounded on speculation, a circumstance not present here.