Rodriguez vs Rodriguez (Group 12) G.R. No. L-23002 Relations/ Prohibition of Donation Between Husband and Wife Doctrine: Property Relations/ Facts: Facts: Concepcion Felix, widow of the late Don Felipe Calderon and with who she had one li!in" child, Concepcion Calderon, contracted a second arria"e on #une $%, &'$', with Doin"o Rodri"ue(, widower with four children by a pre!ious p re!ious arria"e, naed )eronio, *sera"do, #ose and +auricio, all surnaed surnaed Rodri"ue(Prior Rodri"ue(Prior to her arria"e to Rodri"ue(, Rodri"ue(, Concepcion Felix Felix was the re"istered owner of $ -shponds located in the barrio of Baba."ad, Bulacan which she conseuently sold to her dau"hter Concepcion Calderon for P$,0%% 1he properties were then donated bac2 to her and Rodri"ue( thus, ha!in" the properties re"istered under the naes of the spouses 3n +arch 4, &'05, Doin"o Rodri"ue( died intestate, sur!i!ed by the widow, Concepcion Felix, his children )eronio *sera"do and +auricio and "randchildren 3scar, #uan and 6na, surnaed Rodri"ue(, children of a son, #ose, who had predeceased hi1he heirs of Doin"o entered into an extra78udicial settleent of his estate 6on" the properties listed as con8u"al were the two parcels of land in Bulacan, which, to"ether with another piece of property, were di!ided as follows: 9 to Concepcion Feix as her share to the con8u"al property ; of the reainin" 9 to his children and < of the reainin" 9 to his "randchildren Correspondin" new 1C1 1C1s s were issued 3n +arch $5, &'05, in a power of attorney executed by the children and "randchildren of Doin"o Rodri"ue(, Concepcion Felix Felix was naed their attorney in7fact, authori(ed to ana"e their shares in the -shponds -shp onds 3n 3ctober &$, &'0=, the Rodri"ue( children executed executed another docuent "rantin" unto the widow lifetie usufruct o!er one7third of the -shpond which they recei!ed as hereditary share in the estate of Doin"o, which "rant was accepted by Concepcion Felix Felix 1hen, in a contract dated Deceber &0, &'4&, the widow appeared to ha!e leased fro the Rodri"ue( children and "randchildren the -shpond for a period of 0 years coencin" 6u"ust &4, &'4$, for an annual rental of P>,&4&5> 6t this tie, the relationship between Concepcion Felix Felix and her step children turned sour and the widow subseuently failed to deli!er the balance of the earnin"s of the -shpond 6 deand letter was sent to her to clai such, but her answer was the present case see2in" the annulent of the transfer to the con8u"al partnership of the two -shponds on the "round that the con!eyances in issue were obtained throu"h duress, and were inexistent, bein" siulated and without consideration ssue: WON the transfer of the two shponds to the conjugal property were valid Ru!ing: 1he Ru!ing: 1he char"e of siulation siulation is untenable, for the characteristic of siulation is the fact that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce le"al e?ects or in way alter the 8uridical situation of the the parties 1hus, where a person, in order order to place his property beyond the reach of his creditors, siulates a transfer of it to another, he does not really intend to di!est hiself of his title and control of the property hence, the deed of transfer is but a sha But appellant contends that the sale by her to her dau"hter, and the subseuent sale by the latter to appellant and her husband, the late Doin"o Rodri"ue(, were done for the purpose of con!ertin" the property fro paraphernal to con8u"al, thereby !estin" a half interest in Rodri"ue(, and e!adin" the prohibition a"ainst donations fro one spouse to another durin" co!erture @f this is true, then the appellant and her dau"hter ust ha!e intended the two con!eyance to be real and e?ecti!e for appellant could not intend to 2eep the ownership of the -shponds and at the sae tie !est half of the in her husband 1he two contracts of sale then could not ha!e been siulated, but were real and intended to be fully operati!e, bein" the eans to achie!e the result desired Aor does the intention of the parties to circu!ent by these contracts the law a"ainst donations between spouses a2e the siulated ones
What would in!alidate the con!eyances now under scrutiny is the fact that they were resorted to in order to circu!ent the le"al prohibition a"ainst donations between spouses 1he illicit purpose then becoes illegal causa within the ters of the old Ci!il Code nfortunately for herein appellant, in contracts in!alidated by ille"al sub8ect atter or ille"al causa, apply ri"orously the rule in pari delicto non oritur action , denyin" all reco!ery to the "uilty parties inter se 6nd appellant is clearly as "uilty as her husband in the attept to e!ade the le"al interdiction of 6rticle &55= Wherefore, her present action to rei!indicate the, con!eyed properties was #oregoing , the decision appealed fro is correctly repulsed repulsed by the Court n vie" o# t$e #oregoing, ared Costs a"ainst appellant Concepcion Felix da de Rodri"ue( Aotes: %rt. &'. *!ery &'. *!ery donation or "rant of "ratuitous ad!anta"e, direct or indirect, between the spouses durin" the arria"e shall be !oid, except oderate "ifts which the spouses ay "i!e each other on the occasion of any faily re8oicin" 1he prohibition shall also apply to persons li!in" to"ether as husband and wife without a !alid arria"e %rt. 130 130 @f the act which constitutes the illicit consideration is neither a crie nor a isdeeanor, the followin" rules shall be obser!ed: & When both parties are "uilty, neither of the can reco!er what he ay ha!e "i!en by !irtue of the contract, or enforce the perforance of the underta2in" of the other party (not sure what article is this in the NCC)
