Rodriguez vs Rodriguez Grp 12

Rodriguez vs Rodriguez (Group 12) G.R. No. L-23002 Relations/ Prohibition of Donation Between Husband and Wife Doctrine: Property Relations/ Facts: Facts: Concepcion Felix, widow of the late Don Felipe Calderon and with who she had one li!in" child, Concepcion Calderon, contracted a second arria"e on #une $%, &'$', with Doin"o Rodri"ue(, widower with four children by a pre!ious p re!ious arria"e, naed )eronio, *sera"do,  #ose and +auricio, all surnaed surnaed Rodri"ue(Prior Rodri"ue(Prior to her arria"e to Rodri"ue(, Rodri"ue(, Concepcion Felix Felix was the re"istered owner of $ -shponds located in the barrio of Baba."ad, Bulacan which she conseuently sold to her dau"hter Concepcion Calderon for P$,0%% 1he properties were then donated bac2 to her and Rodri"ue( thus, ha!in" the properties re"istered under the naes of the spouses 3n +arch 4, &'05, Doin"o Rodri"ue( died intestate, sur!i!ed by the widow, Concepcion Felix, his children )eronio *sera"do and +auricio and "randchildren 3scar, #uan and 6na, surnaed Rodri"ue(, children of a son, #ose, who had predeceased hi1he heirs of Doin"o entered into an extra78udicial settleent of his estate 6on" the properties listed as con8u"al were the two parcels of land in Bulacan, which, to"ether with another piece of property, were di!ided as follows: 9 to Concepcion Feix as her share to the con8u"al property ; of the reainin" 9 to his children and < of the reainin" 9 to his "randchildren Correspondin" new  1C1  1C1s s were issued 3n +arch $5, &'05, in a power of attorney executed by the children and "randchildren of Doin"o Rodri"ue(, Concepcion Felix Felix was naed their attorney in7fact, authori(ed to ana"e their shares in the -shponds -shp onds 3n 3ctober &$, &'0=, the Rodri"ue( children executed executed another docuent "rantin" unto the widow lifetie usufruct o!er one7third of the -shpond which they recei!ed as hereditary share in the estate of Doin"o, which "rant was accepted by Concepcion Felix Felix 1hen, in a contract dated Deceber &0, &'4&, the widow appeared to ha!e leased fro the Rodri"ue( children and "randchildren the -shpond for a period of 0 years coencin" 6u"ust &4, &'4$, for an annual rental of P>,&4&5> 6t this tie, the relationship between Concepcion Felix Felix and her step children turned sour and the widow subseuently failed to deli!er the balance of the earnin"s of the -shpond 6 deand letter was sent to her to clai such, but her answer was the present case see2in" the annulent of the transfer to the con8u"al partnership of the two -shponds on the "round that the con!eyances in issue were obtained throu"h duress, and were inexistent, bein" siulated and without consideration ssue: WON the transfer of the two shponds to the conjugal property were valid Ru!ing: 1he Ru!ing:  1he char"e of siulation siulation is untenable, for the characteristic of siulation is the fact that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce le"al e?ects or in way alter the  8uridical situation of the the parties 1hus, where a person, in order order to place his property beyond the reach of his creditors, siulates a transfer of it to another, he does not really intend to di!est hiself of his title and control of the property hence, the deed of transfer is but a sha But appellant contends that the sale by her to her dau"hter, and the subseuent sale by the latter to appellant and her husband, the late Doin"o Rodri"ue(, were done for the purpose of con!ertin" the property fro paraphernal to con8u"al, thereby !estin" a half interest in Rodri"ue(, and e!adin" the prohibition a"ainst donations fro one spouse to another durin" co!erture @f this is true, then the appellant and her dau"hter ust ha!e intended the two con!eyance to be real and e?ecti!e for appellant could not intend to 2eep the ownership of the -shponds and at the sae tie !est half of the in her husband 1he two contracts of sale then could not ha!e been siulated, but were real and intended to be fully operati!e, bein" the eans to achie!e the result desired Aor does the intention of the parties to circu!ent by these contracts the law a"ainst donations between spouses a2e the siulated ones

What would in!alidate the con!eyances now under scrutiny is the fact that they were resorted to in order to circu!ent the le"al prohibition a"ainst donations between spouses 1he illicit purpose then becoes illegal causa within the ters of the old Ci!il Code nfortunately for herein appellant, in contracts in!alidated by ille"al sub8ect atter or ille"al causa, apply ri"orously the rule in pari delicto non oritur action , denyin" all reco!ery to the "uilty parties inter  se 6nd appellant is clearly as "uilty as her husband in the attept to e!ade the le"al interdiction of 6rticle &55= Wherefore, her present action to rei!indicate the, con!eyed properties was #oregoing , the decision appealed fro is correctly repulsed repulsed by the Court n vie" o# t$e #oregoing, ared Costs a"ainst appellant Concepcion Felix da de Rodri"ue( Aotes: %rt. &'. *!ery &'. *!ery donation or "rant of "ratuitous ad!anta"e, direct or indirect, between the spouses durin" the arria"e shall be !oid, except oderate "ifts which the spouses ay "i!e each other on the occasion of any faily re8oicin" 1he prohibition shall also apply to persons li!in" to"ether as husband and wife without a !alid arria"e %rt. 130 130 @f the act which constitutes the illicit consideration is neither a crie nor a isdeeanor, the followin" rules shall be obser!ed: & When both parties are "uilty, neither of the can reco!er what he ay ha!e "i!en by !irtue of  the contract, or enforce the perforance of the underta2in" of the other party (not sure what article is this in the NCC)