CHING vs. GOYANKO, JR. November 10, 2006
GR No. 165879
FACTS: •
The respondents are the seven children out of the legal union of Joseph Goyanko, Sr. and Epifania dela Cruz. Respondents claim that in 1961, their parents acquired a real property in Cebu which was first registered in the name of their aunt as their parents was still Chinese citizens this time.
•
In May, 1993, their aunt executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property in favor of their father. In turn, on October 1993, respondent’s father executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the petitioner, Maria Ching, his common-law wife.
•
After Goyanko Sr.’s death, the respondents discovered that the property had been transferred to the name of the petitioner.
•
•
Thus, the respondents filed a Complaint for the recovery of the property and damages against petitioner and they prayed for the nullification of the deed of sale and the issuance of a new one in favor of their father.
ISSUES: •
•
Whether or not the subject property was part of the conjugal property of Spouses Joseph Goyanko and Epifania dela Cruz. Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of herein petitioner was void and inexistent.
HELD: 1) YES. The The subject property was was part part of the the conjugal conjugal property property of the Spouses. As it was acquired during the existence of a valid marriage between Joseph Sr. and Epifania. Moreover, there was no decree of dissolution of marriage, nor of their conjugal partnership. 2) YES. •
Supreme Court held that the contract of sale was null and void for being contrary to morals and public policy. The sale was made by a husband in favor of his concubine.
•
•
o
According to Article 1409: Contracts whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy are void and inexistent from the very beginning. Article 1352, NCC, also provides that: Contracts without cause or with unlawful cause produce no effect whatsoever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or pubic policy.
Moreover, the sale of the property in favor of herein petitioner also fell under the prohibition of sale of property between the spouses provided for by Art. 1490, NCC. This provision also applies to common law relationship. o
To rule otherwise would mean that “the condition of those who incurred guilt would be better than those in legal union”
o
This is so because if transfers and conveyances are allowed between spouses during marriage would destroy the system of conjugal partnership. partnership. This is also designed to prevent the exercise of undue influence of one spouse over the other and to protect the institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone cornerstone of family law.
Therefore, sale of the property made by Joseph Goyanko, Sr. in favor of his common-law wife is null and void.
