G.R. No. 250774 – EDGARDO SANTOS, ZENAIDA SANTOSHERRERA,CORAZON SANTOS CANTILERO, ARMANDO SANTOS, SONIA SANTOS MAGPAYO, CIELITO SANTOS BALMEDIANO, EVELYN SANTOS NICOLAS, FELIXBERTO SANTOS, MARIA BETTINA DIAZ SANTOS, REUBEN JOSEPH SANTOS, JEROME SANTOS DE GUZMAN, AND JERICK SANTOS DE GUZMAN, Petitioners vs. MARIA D. SANTOS and/or her Successors-in-Interest, Respondent.
CARANDANG, J.
Rule Synopsis
Donations between spouses during the marriage are prohibited under Art. 87 of the Family Code.
Facts
Jose Santos was first married to Josefa Santos. They had eight children, three of whom predeceased Jose. When Josefa died, Jose married for the second time in the person of Maria Santos. During her marriage with Maria, Jose received a total of 6,000 sqm of rice land from his tenant, the Gaspar family, allegedly as “Disturbance Compensation of Tenant.” He donated a 694 sqm portion of this lot to Maria through a document called Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob Pala. Jose died without a will. Thereafter, Jose’s heirs by his first marriage asked Maria to divide the 694 sqm lot into 9 equal portions for distribution to Jose’s children and grandchildren from his first marriage and Maria. Maria refused, claiming sole ownership of the subject property. The Supreme Court found that Maria did not become the exclusive owner of the subject property. The donation made by Jose to her during their marriage (celebrated during the effectivity of the Family Code) was null and void for being prohibited by law, specifically, Art. 87 of the FC.
Issue
Did Maria become the sole owner of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-289268 by virtue of the Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob Pala executed by Jose before his death?
Ruling
No. Maria did not become the sole owner of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-289268 by virtue of the Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob Pala executed by Jose before his death.
Jose’s donation of the subject property through a document called Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob Pala to Maria is null and void. Under Art. 87 of the Family Code, donations between spouses during the marriage are prohibited. Maria cannot claim to be the sole owner of the subject property based on the void donation.
Jose did not acquire the subject property from the Gaspar family by gratuitous title. He acquired the same by onerous title.
The allegation of the alleged insertion of the phrase “Disturbance Compensation of Tenant” in the Deeds of Donation (from the Gaspar family to Jose) was only raised for the first time in the petition for review on certiorari. Edgardo’s group can no longer challenge the veracity of their contents and claim that said the phrase was inserted in the documents.
The designation or caption of a contract cannot prevail over the clear intent of the parties as stated in the body of the documents. The payment of disturbance compensation to tenants working on agricultural lands is not unusual. The right of agricultural lessee over the same is, in fact, recognized under the Agricultural Land Reform Code. Although the phrase “Disturbance Compensation” was not mentioned elsewhere in the Deeds of Donation, it cannot be denied that the transaction was a result of the compromise agreement between the Gaspar family, the landowner, and Jose, the tenant. It is clear that the transaction is onerous in nature. The valuable consideration foregone by Jose in exchange for the subject property is his right to cultivate the subject landholding.
The subject property was excluded from the community property of Jose and Maria.
The property regime of Jose and Maria’s marriage, celebrated on April 25, 2002, during the effectivity of the Family Code, was the Absolute Community of Property.
Under Art. 93, “[p]roperty acquired during fae marriage is presumed to belong to the community unless it is proved that it is one of those excluded therefrom,” and the subject property is not one of the exceptions found under Art. 92 of the same Code.
It was already established that the subject property was acquired by Jose by onerous title during his marriage to Maria despite being denominated as a donation. The subject property was acquired by way of disturbance compensation. It shall form part of the community property of Jose and Maria and one-half of the property belongs to Maria.
The children of Ruben, Bettina, and Reuben Joseph should not be excluded from the partition on the ground that they failed to prove their legitimate affiliation.
Ruben’s filiation is not contested. Both parties do not deny that Ruben is Jose’s 8th son. Art. 172 of the FC on the means of proving filiation applies only when the filiation of an individual is contested.
The surviving children of Jose likewise recognize Bettina and Reuben Joseph. The latter even authorized their aunt to act on their behalf in the partition proceedings.
Maria failed to avail the proper remedy in filing an ordinary appeal under Rule 44 to the CA.
Maria’s appeal is not based solely on questions of law, she also raised a question of fact. Particularly, whether the subject property can be considered part of the absolute community property of her and Jose. This issue hinges on underlying questions of fact that need to be resolved to determine the nature of the transfer of the property by the Gaspar family to Jose.
dispositive
Decision and Resolution of the CA set aside.