Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Matabuena V Cervantes

    Uploaded by

    Chil Belgira
    This case involves a donation of property from Felix Matabuena to Petronila Cervantes while they were in a common law marriage. The plaintiff, Cornelia Matabuena, Felix's sister, claims the property should be void according to Article 133 of the Civil Code which prohibits donations between spouses during marriage. The lower court upheld the donation's validity since it occurred before their official marriage. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the spirit of the law is to prohibit such donations due to potential undue pressure, and this spirit should also apply to common law marriages. The donation is declared void and the rights of the plaintiff and defendant are held as pro indiviso.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Matabuena V Cervantes

    Uploaded by

    Chil Belgira
    2K views2 pages
    This case involves a donation of property from Felix Matabuena to Petronila Cervantes while they were in a common law marriage. The plaintiff, Cornelia Matabuena, Felix's sister, claims the property should be void according to Article 133 of the Civil Code which prohibits donations between spouses during marriage. The lower court upheld the donation's validity since it occurred before their official marriage. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the spirit of the law is to prohibit such donations due to potential undue pressure, and this spirit should also apply to common law marriages. The donation is declared void and the rights of the plaintiff and defendant are held as pro indiviso.

    Original Title

    Matabuena v Cervantes

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a donation of property from Felix Matabuena to Petronila Cervantes while they were in a common law marriage. The plaintiff, Cornelia Matabuena, Felix's sister, claims the property should be void according to Article 133 of the Civil Code which prohibits donations between spouses during marriage. The lower court upheld the donation's validity since it occurred before their official marriage. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the spirit of the law is to prohibit such donations due to potential undue pressure, and this spirit should also apply to common law marriages. The donation is declared void and the rights of the plaintiff and defendant are held as pro indiviso.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Matabuena V Cervantes

    Uploaded by

    Chil Belgira
    This case involves a donation of property from Felix Matabuena to Petronila Cervantes while they were in a common law marriage. The plaintiff, Cornelia Matabuena, Felix's sister, claims the property should be void according to Article 133 of the Civil Code which prohibits donations between spouses during marriage. The lower court upheld the donation's validity since it occurred before their official marriage. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the spirit of the law is to prohibit such donations due to potential undue pressure, and this spirit should also apply to common law marriages. The donation is declared void and the rights of the plaintiff and defendant are held as pro indiviso.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Cornelia MATABUENA plaintiff-appellant v Petronila CERVANTES defendant-

    appellee
    [G.R. No. L-28771. March 31, 1971] [G.R. No. L-28771. March 31, 1971]
    TOPIC: Nature and concept of statutory construction

    FACTS:
    The stipulated facts agreed upon by both the plaintiff and the defendant assisted
    by their respective counsels, are:

    1. The deceased Felix Matabuena owned the property in question;


    2. Felix Matabuena executed a Deed of Donation inter vivos (referring to a transfer
    or gift made during one's lifetime, as opposed to a testamentary transfer which is
    a gift that takes effect on death) in favor of defendant, Petronila Cervantes over
    the parcel of land in question on February 20, 1956, which same donation was
    accepted by defendant;
    3. The donation of the land to Petronila (defendant) which took effect immediately
    was made during the common law relationship as husband and wife, they were
    married on March 28, 1962;
    4. The deceased Felix Matabuena died intestate on September 13, 1962;
    5. The plaintiff claims the property by reason of being the only sister and nearest
    collateral relative of the deceased by virtue of an affidavit of self-adjudication
    executed by her in 1962 and had the land declared in her name and paid the
    estate and inheritance taxes thereon.

    Cornelia (plaintiff-appellant), sister of Felix Matabuena maintains that the donation


    made by Felix to Petronila Cervantes (defendant-appellee) was void because they
    were living without the benefit of marriage (common law marriage). This is in
    pursuant to Article 133 of Civil Code which provides "Every donation between
    the spouses during the marriage shall be void. On 23 November 1965, the
    lower court upheld the validity of the donation as it was made before Cervantes’
    marriage to the donor. Hence this appeal.

    ISSUE:
    WON the ban on a donation between the spouses during a marriage applies to a
    common-law relationship

    HELD:
    The lower court decision of November 23, 1965 dismissing the complaint with
    costs is REVERSED. The questioned donation is declared void, with the rights of
    plaintiff and defendant as pro indiviso (for an undivided part). The case is
    remanded to the lower court for its appropriate disposition in accordance with the
    above opinion.
    RATIO:
    It is a principle of statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the law is
    as much a part of it as what is written. If there is ever any occasion where the
    principle of statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the law is as
    much a part of it as what is written, then such would be it. Otherwise the basic
    purpose discernible in such codal provision would not be attained.

    A 1954 Court of Appeals decision Buenaventura v. Bautista, interpreting a similar


    provision of the old Civil Code says clearly that if the policy of the law is (in the
    language of the opinion of the then Justice J.B.L. Reyes of that Court) "to prohibit
    donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear of
    undue and improper pressure and influence upon the donor, a prejudice deeply
    rooted in our ancient law then there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive
    policy to persons living together as husband and wife without benefit of nuptials.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy