When a Donation to a Common-Law Spouse Is Void Under Article 87 of the Family Code

The Supreme Court, in Arcaba v. Tabancura Vda. de Batocael (G.R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001), affirmed that donations between persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage are void under Article 87 of the Family Code. The case clarifies what evidence is needed to prove a common-law relationship and why a deed of donation in favor of a caregiver was struck down.

The Facts of the Case

Francisco Comille, a widower with no children, was cared for in his old age by Cirila Arcaba, a widow then 34 years old. Francisco was 75. Cirila lived in his house, managed his store, and attended to his needs. She did not receive a regular cash wage but was provided food and lodging.

A few months before his death in 1991, Francisco executed a Deed of Donation inter vivos in favor of Cirila, transferring 150 square meters of his lot and his house. The deed stated the donation was in consideration of her "faithful services" over ten years. After Francisco died, his nephews and nieces—his intestate heirs—filed a complaint to nullify the donation.

The heirs alleged that Cirila was Francisco's common-law wife, not merely a helper. Under Article 87 of the Family Code, any donation or grant of gratuitous advantage between persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage is void, except moderate gifts on family rejoicings.

The Issue

The central question was whether Cirila was a mere employee or a common-law spouse of Francisco. If she was the latter, the donation was void.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that the donation was void. The Court found that the evidence sufficiently established that Cirila and Francisco lived together as husband and wife.

Key evidence included:

• Use of the surname "Comille": Cirila signed documents—including a business permit application, a sanitary permit, and Francisco's death certificate—using the surname "Comille."
• Testimony of relatives: A niece testified that Francisco told her Cirila was his mistress.
• A pleading in another case: Lessees of Francisco's property referred to Cirila as his "common-law spouse."
• No regular wage: Cirila did not demand a regular cash wage, which the Court found inconsistent with a mere caregiver-employee relationship. Under the Labor Code, she would have been entitled to one.

What Constitutes "Living Together as Husband and Wife"

The Court explained that cohabitation under Article 87 means more than merely residing under one roof. It requires:

• Public assumption of the marital relation—dwelling together as man and wife and holding themselves out to the public as such.
• Repeated sexual intercourse, although the Court noted that cohabitation means more than sex, especially when one party is elderly.

Secret or clandestine meetings, even if repeated, do not constitute cohabitation—they are merely meretricious. In this case, the Court found that the public conduct of Cirila and Francisco indicated they were exclusive partners akin to husband and wife.

Why the Donation Was Void

Because the respondents proved by a preponderance of evidence that Cirila and Francisco lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, the donation fell squarely within the prohibition of Article 87. The deed of donation was declared null and void, and Cirila was ordered to return the property.

Practical Takeaways

• Article 87 of the Family Code voids donations between common-law spouses, not just between legally married spouses. The prohibition covers direct or indirect gratuitous advantages.
• Cohabitation requires public conduct, not just living under one roof. Courts look at whether the couple held themselves out to the public as husband and wife.
• Using a partner's surname in documents can be strong evidence of a common-law relationship, even without a valid marriage.
• Caregivers or helpers who receive no regular wage may face questions about the true nature of their relationship with an elderly benefactor.
• Donations to caregivers should be carefully structured—if a donor intends a gift for services rendered, the relationship must be clearly documented to avoid the presumption of a common-law arrangement.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.