The proscription against sale of property between spouses applies to common law relationships
Facts: Joseph and Epifania were married. During the marriage, they acquire a certain property in Cebu. In 1993, Joseph executed a deed of sale over the property in favor of his common-law-wife Maria. After Joseph's death, his children with Epifania discovered the sale. They thus filed with a complaint for recovery of property and damages against Maria, praying for the nullification of the deed of sale and of the TCT and the issuance of a new one in favor of their father Joseph. Was the contract of sale executed by Joseph in favor of Maria null and void?
Held: Yes. 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 a concubine after he had abandoned his family and left the conjugal home where his wife and children lived and from whence they derived their support. The sale was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects.
Article 1409 of the Civil Code states inter alia that: contracts whose cause, object, or purposes is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy are void and inexistent from the very beginning.
Article 1352 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 public policy.”
Additionally, the law emphatically prohibits the spouses from selling property to each other subject to certain exceptions. Similarly, donations between spouses during marriage are prohibited. And this is so because if transfers or conveyances between spouses were allowed during marriage, that would destroy the system of conjugal partnership, a basic policy in civil law. It was also designed to prevent the exercise of undue influence by one spouse over the other, as well as to protect the institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of family law. The prohibitions apply to a couple living as husband and wife without benefit of marriage, otherwise, “the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union.”
As the conveyance in question was made by Joseph in favor of his common- law-wife, it was null and void. [Ching vs Goyanko, Jr., G.R. No. 165879, November 10, 2006 citing Calimlim-Canullas v. Fortun, G.R. No. L-57499, June 22, 1984]