Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

Arcaba vs. Vda.
De Batocael
FACTS: Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became the registered
owners of Lot No. 437-A located at the corner of Calle Santa Rosa (now Balintawak
Street) and Calle Rosario (now Rizal Avenue) in Dipolog City, Zamboanga del
Norte. The total area of the lot was 418 square meters. ]After the death of Zosima on
October 3, 1980, Francisco and his mother-in-law, Juliana Bustalino Montallana,
executed a deed of extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights, in which the latter waived
her share consisting of one-fourth ( 1/4) of the property to Francisco. On June 27, 1916,
Francisco registered the lot in his name with the Registry of Deeds. Having no children
to take care of him after his retirement, Francisco asked his niece Leticia Bellosillo, the
latters cousin, Luzviminda Paghacian, and petitioner Cirila Arcaba, then a widow, to take
care of his house, as well as the store inside.
Conflicting testimonies were offered as to the nature of the relationship between
Cirila and Francisco. Leticia Bellosillo said Francisco and Cirila were lovers since they
slept in the same room, while Erlinda Tabancura, another niece of Francisco, claimed
that the latter had told her that Cirila was his mistress . On the other hand, Cirila said she
was a mere helper who could enter the masters bedroom only when the old man asked
her to and that Francisco in any case was too old for her. She denied they ever had
sexual intercourse. It appears that when Leticia and Luzviminda were married, only
Cirila was left to take care of Francisco. Cirila testified that she was a 34-year old widow
while Francisco was a 75-year old widower when she began working for the latter; that
he could still walk with her assistance at that time; and that his health eventually
deteriorated and he became bedridden. Erlinda Tabancura testified that Franciscos sole
source of income consisted of rentals from his lot near the public streets. He did not pay
Cirila a regular cash wage as a househelper, though he provided her family with food
and lodging.
On January 24, 1991, a few months before his death, Francisco executed an
instrument denominated Deed of Donation Inter Vivos, in which he ceded a portion of
Lot 437-A, consisting of 150 square meters, together with his house, to Cirila, who
accepted the donation in the same instrument. Francisco left the larger portion of 268
square meters in his name. The deed stated that the donation was being made in
consideration of the faithful services [Cirila Arcaba] had rendered over the past ten (10)
years. The deed was notarized by Atty. Vic T. Lacaya, Sr. and later registered by Cirila
as its absolute owner.
On October 4, 1991, Francisco died without any children. In 1993, the lot which
Cirila received from Francisco had a market value of P57,105.00 and an assessed
value of P28,550.00. On February 18, 1993, respondents filed a complaint against

petitioner for declaration of nullity of a deed of donation inter vivos, recovery of
possession, and damages. Respondents, who are the decedents nephews and nieces
and his heirs by intestate succession, alleged that Cirila was the common-law wife of
Francisco and the donation inter vivos made by Francisco in her favor is void under
Article 87 of the Family Code, Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or
indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts
which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The
prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a
valid marriage.
ISSUE: Whether or not the deed of donation inter vivos executed by Francisco in
Cirilas favor is valid.
RULING: No. Cirila admitted that she and Francisco resided under one roof for a long
time. It is very possible that the two consummated their relationship, since Cirila gave
Francisco therapeutic massage and Leticia said they slept in the same bedroom. At the
very least, their public conduct indicated that theirs was not just a relationship of
caregiver and patient, but that of exclusive partners akin to husband and wife.
Aside from Erlinda Tabancuras testimony that her uncle told her that Cirila was his
mistress, there are other indications that Cirila and Francisco were common-law
spouses. Seigfredo Tabancura presented documents apparently signed by Cirila using
the surname Comille. As previously stated, these are an application for a business
permit to operate as a real estate lessor,[33] a sanitary permit to operate as real estate
lessor with a health certificate, and the death certificate of Francisco. These documents
show that Cirila saw herself as Franciscos common-law wife, otherwise, she would not
have used his last name. Similarly, in the answer filed by Franciscos lessees in Erlinda
Tabancura, et al. vs. Gracia Adriatico Sy and Antonio Sy, RTC Civil Case No. 4719 (for
collection of rentals), these lessees referred to Cirila as the common-law spouse of
Francisco. Finally, the fact that Cirila did not demand from Francisco a regular cash
wage is an indication that she was not simply a caregiver-employee, but Franciscos
common law spouse. She was, after all, entitled to a regular cash wage under the law. It
is difficult to believe that she stayed with Francisco and served him out of pure
beneficence. Human reason would thus lead to the conclusion that she was Franciscos
common-law spouse.
Respondents having proven by a preponderance of evidence that Cirila and
Francisco lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, the
inescapable conclusion is that the donation made by Francisco in favor of Cirila
is void under Art. 87 of the Family Code.

Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arcaba vs. Vda. de Batocael

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 vs. Vda. de Batocael

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arcaba vs. Vda.

value of P28,550.00. On February 18, 1993, respondents filed a complaint against

You might also like