LAW ON PROPERTY | LIGUEZ V. COURT OF APPEALS 102 PHIL. 577, DECEMBER 18, 1957
LIGUEZ V. COURT OF APPEALS
102 PHIL. 577, DECEMBER 18, 1957
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
The same
view is held by the Supreme Court of Spain, in its decisions of February 4,
1941, and December 4, 1946, holding that the motive may be regarded as causa when it predetermines the purpose of the
contract.
FACTS
The case
began upon complaint filed by petitioner-appellant against the widow and heirs
of the late Salvador P. Lopez to recover a parcel of 51.84 hectares of land,
situated in Barrio Bogac-Linot, of the municipality of Mati, Province of Davao.
Plaintiff averred to be its legal owner, pursuant to a deed of donation of said
land, executed in her favor by the late owner, Salvador P. Lopez, on 18 May
1943. The defense interposed was that the donation was null and void for having
an illicit causa or consideration, which was plaintiff's entering into
marital relations with Salvador P. Lopez, a married man; and that the property
had been adjudicated to the appellees as heirs of Lopez by the Court of First
Instance, since 1949.
ISSUE
Whether the
donation was null and void for having an illicit causa or consideration.
RULING
Yes.
Under
Article 1274, of the Civil Code of 1889, liberality of the donor is deemed causa only in those contracts that are of "pure" beneficence; that is to say, contracts designed solely
and exclusively to procure the welfare of the beneficiary, without any intent
of producing any satisfaction for the donor; contracts, in other words, in
which the idea of self-interest is totally absent on the part of the
transferor. For this very reason, the same Article 1274 provides that in remuneratory contracts, the consideration is the service or benefit for which the remuneration is given; causa is not liberality in these cases because the
contract or conveyance is not made out of pure beneficence, but "solvendi animo". The same
view is held by the Supreme Court of Spain, in its decisions of February 4,
1941, and December 4, 1946, holding that the motive may be regarded as causa when it predetermines the purpose of the
contract.
Here, the court ruled that it is scarsely disputable that
Lopez would not have conveyed the property in question had he known that
appellant would refuse to cohabit with him; so that the cohabitation was an
implied condition to the donation, and being unlawful, necessarily tainted the
donation itself.