Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Agapay vs Palang
G.R. No. 116668
July 28, 1997
Romero, J.
FACTS:
On July 16, 1949, Miguel Palang contracted his first marriage with private
respondent Carlina Vallesterol in Pangasinan. A few months after the wedding, in
October, he left to work in Hawaii. Their only child and respondent, Herminia Palang,
was born on May 12, 1950. The trial court found evidence that as early as 1957,
Miguel has attempted to divorce in Hawaii. When he returned for good in 1972, he
refused to live with the private respondents.
On July 15, 1973, the then 63 years old Miguel contracted his second marriage with
19 year-old Erlinda Agapay, herein petitioner. Two months earlier, Miguel and the
petitioner, as evidenced by the Deed of Sale, jointly purchased a parcel of
agricultural land located at Pangasinan. A house and lot in the same province was
likewise purchased allegedly by Erlinda as the sole vendee.
Miguel and petitioners cohabitation produced a son. In 1979, they were convicted
of Concubinage upon Carlinas complaint. Two years later, on February 15, 1981,
Miguel died.
On July 11, 1981, the private respondents instituted an action for recovery of
ownership and possession with damages against petitioner. Private respondents
sought to get back the Riceland and the house and lot both located at Pangasinan
allegedly purchased by Miguel during his cohabitation with petitioner. The lower
court dismissed the complaint. Said decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals.
The petitioner claims that the CA erred in, among others, not sustaining the validity
of two deeds of absolute sale covering the Riceland and the house and lot.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the award of properties, the riceland and house & lot, should be
granted in favor of the petitioner.
HELD:
NO.
RICELAND. While Miguel and Erlinda contracted marriage on July 15, 1973, said
union was patently void because the earlier marriage of Miguel and Carlina was still
subsisting and unaffected by the latters de facto separation. Under Article 148, only
the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution
of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to
her respective contributions. If the actual contribution of the party is not proved,
there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares. In the case at
bar, the petitioner tried to establish by her testimony that she is engaged in the