Matabuena v Cervantes

Cornelia MATABUENA MATABUENA  plaintiff-appellant  v Petronila CERVANTES CERVANTES defendantappellee [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 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 plaintiff claims the property property by reason of being the only sister and nearest nearest collat collatera erall relati relative ve of the deceas deceased ed by virtu virtue e of an affidav affidavit it of self-ad self-adjud judica icatio tion n 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 The lower lower court court decisi decision on of Novemb November er 23 23,, 19 1965 65 dis dismi missi ssing ng the compla complaint int with with costs is REVERSED. The questioned donation is declared void, with the rights of  plai plaint ntif ifff and and defe defend ndan antt as pro pro indi indivi viso so (for (for an undi undivi vide ded d part part). ). The The case 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 what is written. written. If there is is ever any occasio occasion n 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.