Liguez v. CA Digest

Liguez v. CA Dec. 18, 1957 | Reyes, JBL, J. | Void contracts PETITIONER: Conchita Liguez RESPONDENT: CA, Maria Ngo, et al. SUMMARY: Through a deed of donation, Salvador Lopez donated a parcel of land to Conchita Liguez, who was then 16. In an action commenced by Conchita to recover the same, the CA found that the deed was null and void for having an illegal causa and for Salvador’s lack of right to donate conjugal property. This was based upon the finding that Salvador donated the land in order to cohabit with and have sexual relations with Conchita. The CA also rejected the claim based on the in pari delicto rule. The SC found that the conveyance was indeed predicated on an illegal causa. However, the pari delicto rule does not apply since at the time of the donation, Salvador was a man advanced in years and Conchita was only 16. Furthermore, Salvador’s forced heirs are barred from invoking the illegality of the causa, and are thereby only entitled to a declaration of the donation as inofficious. DOCTRINE: The rule that parties to an illegal contract, if equally guilty, will not be aided by the law but will both be left where it finds them, has been interpreted by this Court as barring the party from pleading the illegality of the bargain either as a cause of action or as a defense. A donation with illegal causa may produce effects under certain circumstances where the parties are not of equal guilt.

FACTS: 1. Conchita Liguez filed a complaint against the widow and heirs of Salvador Lopez to recover a parcel of 51.84 hectares of land in Davao. She averred to be its legal owner, pursuant to a deed of donation executed in her favor by Salvador. 2. At the time the deed was executed, Conchita was 16. She had also been living with Salvador’s parents for barely a month. 3. The deed of donation recites that the donor Salvador, “for and in consideration of his love and affection” for Conchita, and “also for the good and valuable services rendered to [Salvador] by [Conchita], does by these presents, voluntarily give, grant and donate…” 4. The donation was made in view of Salvador’s desire to have sexual relations with Conchita. Furthermore, Conchita’s parents would not allow Conchita to live with him unless he first donated the subject land. 5. The donated land originally belonged to the conjugal partnership of Salvador and his wife, Maria Ngo. 6. CA: The deed of donation was inoperative, and null and void because: a. Lopez had no right to donate conjugal property to Conchita; b. The donation was tainted with illegal causa or consideration. 7. The CA also rejected Conchita’s claim based on the rule “in pari delicto non oritur actio,” as embodied in Art. 1306 of the 1889 Civil Code (as reproduced in Art. 1412 in the new Civil Code). 8. Conchita: under Art. 1274 (of the 1889 Civil Code), “in contracts of pure beneficence the consideration is the liberality of the donor,” and liberality per se can never be illegal, since it is neither against law or morals or public policy. ISSUE/S: 1. WON the conveyance was predicated on illegal causa – YES 2. WON the in pari delicto rule applies – NO 3. WON the alienation of conjugal property was void – only insofar as it prejudices Maria Ngo RULING: Decisions appealed from reversed and set aside. Conchita Liguez entitled to so much of the donated property as may be found, upon proper liquidation, not to prejudice the share

of the widow Maria Ngo in the conjugal partnership or the legitimes of Salvador’s forced heirs. The records are remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. RATIO: 1. Under the cited Art. 1274, liberality of the donor is deemed causa only in contracts that are of “pure” beneficence, or contracts designed solely and exclusively to procure the welfare of the beneficiary, without any intent of producing any satisfaction for the donor. 2. In this case, Salvador was not moved exclusively by the desire to benefit Conchita, but also to secure her cohabiting with him, and so that he could gratify his sexual impulses. This is clear from Salvador’s confession to two witnesses that he was in love with her. 3. Lopez would not have conveyed the property in question had he known that Conchita would refuse to cohabit with him. The cohabitation was an implied condition to the donation and being unlawful, necessarily tainted the donation. 4. Therefore, the donation was but one part of an onerous transaction (with Conchita’s parents) that must be viewed in its totality. 5. The CA erred in applying the pari delicto rule. The facts are more suggestive of seduction than of immoral bargaining. a. It cannot be said that both parties had equal guilt. Salvador was a man advanced in years and mature experience, and Conchita was only 16 when the donation was made. b. The CA did not find that she was fully aware of the terms of the bargain entered into by her parents. c. Her acceptance of the deed does not imply knowledge of conditions and terms not set forth therein. d. Witnesses testified that it was Conchita’s parents who insisted on the donation. 6. The rule that parties to an illegal contract, if equally guilty, will not be aided by the law but will both be left where it finds them, has been interpreted by this Court as barring the party from pleading the illegality of the bargain either as a cause of action or as a defense. But where the plaintiff can establish a cause of action without exposing its illegality, the vice does not affect the right to recover. 7. Applied to the case: Conchita seeks recovery of the land

based on the strength of a donation regular on its face. To defeat its effect, the heirs must plead and prove that the same is illegal, which they cannot do, since Lopez himself, if living, would be barred from setting up that plea. 8. Lopez could not donate the entirety of the property to the prejudice of his wife. The donation is void only insofar as it prejudices the interest of his wife. a. FC 1409: The conjugal partnership can be charged anything given or promised by the husband in order to obtain employment for his children, or give them a profession. b. 1415: The husband may dispose of the property of the conjugal partnership for purposes in Art. 1409. c. 1413: The husband may for a valuable consideration alienate and encumber the property of the conjugal partnership without the consent of the wife. 9. To determine the prejudice to the widow, it must be shown that the value of her share in the property donated cannot be paid out of the husband’s share of the community profits. However, the requisite data are not available to the court. The records need to be remanded to the court of origin that settled Salvador’s estate. 10. Salvador’s forced heirs cannot invoke the illegality of the donation, but are entitled to have the donation set aside insofar as inofficious, based on their rights to a legitime out

of his estate. However, only the court of origin has the requisite data to determine whether or not it is inofficious. 11. Re: improvements in the land – governed by rules of accession and possession in good faith, since Maria and Salvador’s heirs were unaware of the donation to Conchita when the improvements were made. 12. Re: laches – Conchita only enforced her right as donee in 1951. But the Court highlights that in 1943, she was still sixteen; she only reached the age of majority in 1948. Her action 1951 was only delayed three years. Furthermore, she couldn’t have intervened in Salvador’s estate proceedings because she was a minor for its great part. Also, the donation did not make her a creditor of the estate. 13. A donation with illegal causa may produce effects under certain circumstances where the parties are not of equal guilt.