TodayisThursday,December10,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.165879November10,2006
MARIAB.CHING,Petitioner,
vs.
JOSEPHC.GOYANKO,JR.,EVELYNGOYANKO,JERRYGOYANKO,IMELDAGOYANKO,JULIUS
GOYANKO,MARYELLENGOYANKOANDJESSGOYANKO,Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIOMORALES,J.:
OnDecember30,1947,JosephGoyanko(Goyanko)andEpifaniadelaCruz(Epifania)weremarried.1Outofthe
union were born respondents Joseph, Jr., Evelyn, Jerry, Imelda, Julius, Mary Ellen and Jess, all surnamed
Goyanko.
Respondents claim that in 1961, their parents acquired a 661 square meter property located at 29 F. Cabahug
St.,CebuCitybutthatasthey(theparents)wereChinesecitizensatthetime,thepropertywasregisteredinthe
nameoftheiraunt,SulpiciaVentura(Sulpicia).
OnMay1,1993,Sulpiciaexecutedadeedofsale2overthepropertyinfavorofrespondentsfatherGoyanko.In
turn,GoyankoexecutedonOctober12,1993adeedofsale3overthepropertyinfavorofhiscommonlawwife
herein petitioner Maria B. Ching. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 138405 was thus issued in petitioners
name.
After Goyankos death on March 11, 1996, respondents discovered that ownership of the property had already
beentransferredinthenameofpetitioner.Respondentsthereuponhadthepurportedsignatureoftheirfatherin
the deed of sale verified by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory which found the same to be a
forgery.4
Respondents thus filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City a complaint for recovery of property and
damages against petitioner, praying for the nullification of the deed of sale and of TCT No. 138405 and the
issuanceofanewoneinfavoroftheirfatherGoyanko.
Indefense,petitionerclaimedthatsheistheactualownerofthepropertyasitwasshewhoprovideditspurchase
price.TodisprovethatGoyankossignatureinthequestioneddeedofsaleisaforgery,shepresentedaswitness
thenotarypublicwhotestifiedthatGoyankoappearedandsignedthedocumentinhispresence.
ByDecisionofOctober16,1998,5thetrialcourtdismissedthecomplaintagainstpetitioner,thepertinentportions
ofwhichdecisionread:
Thereisnovalidandsufficientgroundtodeclarethesaleasnullandvoid,fictitiousandsimulated.Thesignature
onthequestionedDeedofSaleisgenuine.ThetestimonyofAtty.SalvadorBarramedawhodeclaredincourtthat
JosephGoyanko,Sr.andMariaChingtogetherwiththeirwitnessesappearedbeforehimfornotarizationofDeed
of Sale in question is more reliable than the conflicting testimonies of the two document examiners. Defendant
MariaChingassertedthattheDeedofSaleexecutedbyJosephGoyanko,Sr.inherfavorisvalidandgenuine.
ThesignatureofJosephGoyanko,Sr.inthequestionedDeedofAbsoluteSaleisgenuineasitwasdulyexecuted
andsignedbyJosephGoyanko,Sr.himself.
TheparceloflandsknownasLotNo.6whichissoughttoberecoveredinthiscasecouldneverbeconsideredas
theconjugalpropertyoftheoriginalSpousesJosephC.GoyankoandEpifaniadelaCruzortheexclusivecapital
propertyofthehusband.TheacquisitionofthesaidpropertybydefendantMariaChingiswellelicitedfromthe
aforementionedtestimonialanddocumentaryevidencepresentedbythedefendant.Althoughforatimebeingthe
propertypassedthroughJosephGoyanko,Sr.asabuyeryethisownershipwasonlytemporaryandtransitoryfor
thereasonthatitwassubsequentlysoldtohereindefendantMariaChing.MariaChingclaimedthatitwaseven
hermoneywhichwasusedbyJosephGoyanko,Sr.inthepurchaseofthelandandsoitwaseventuallysoldto
her.Inhertestimony,defendantChingjustifiedherfinancialcapabilitytobuythelandforherself.Thetransaction
undertakenwasfromtheoriginalownerSulpiciaVenturatoJosephGoyanko,Sr.andthenfromJoesphGoyanko,
Sr.tohereindefendantMariaChing.

The land subject of the litigation is already registered in the name of defendant Maria Ching under TCT No.
138405.ByvirtueoftheDeedofSaleexecutedinfavorofMariaChing,TransferCertificateofTitleNo.138405
was issued in her favor. In recognition of the proverbial virtuality of a Torrens title, it has been repeatedly held
that,unlessbadfaithcanbeestablishedonthepartofthepersonappearingasowneronthecertificateoftitle,
there is no other owner than that in whose favor it has been issued. A Torrens title is not subject to collateral
attack.ItisawellknowndoctrinethataTorrenstitle,asarule,isirrevocableandindefeasible,andthedutyofthe
court is to see to it that this title is maintained and respected unless challenged in a direct proceedings [sic].6
(Citationsomittedunderscoringsupplied)
BeforetheCourtofAppealswhererespondentsappealed,theyarguedthatthetrialcourterred:
1. . . . when it dismissed the complaint a quo . . . , in effect, sustaining the sale of the subject property
betweenJoseph,Sr.andthedefendantappellee,despitetheproliferationintherecordsandadmissionsby
bothpartiesthatdefendantappelleewasthe"mistress"or"commonlawwife"ofJoseph,Sr..
2. . . . when it dismissed the complaint a quo . . . , in effect, sustaining the sale of the subject property
between Joseph, Sr. and the defendantappellee, despite the fact that the marriage of Joseph, Sr. and
EpifaniawasthenstillsubsistingtherebyrenderingthesubjectpropertyasconjugalpropertyofJoseph,Sr.
andEpifania.
3. . . . in dismissing the complaint a quo . . . , in effect, sustaining the validity of the sale of the subject
property between Joseph, Sr. and the defendantappellee, despite the clear findings of forgery and the
noncredibletestimonyofnotarypublic.7
By Decision dated October 21, 2003,8 the appellate court reversed that of the trial court and declared null and
voidthequestioneddeedofsaleandTCTNo.138405.Heldtheappellatecourt:
...ThesubjectpropertyhavingbeenacquiredduringtheexistenceofavalidmarriagebetweenJosephSr.and
EpifaniadelaCruzGoyanko,ispresumedtobelongtotheconjugalpartnership.Moreover,whilethispresumption
infavorofconjugalityisrebuttablewithclearandconvincingprooftothecontrary,wefindnoevidenceonrecord
to conclude otherwise. The record shows that while Joseph Sr. and his wife Epifania have been estranged for
years and that he and defendantappellant Maria Ching, have in fact been living together as commonlaw
husbandandwife,therehasneverbeenajudicialdecreedeclaringthedissolutionofhismarriagetoEpifanianor
their conjugal partnership. It is therefore undeniable that the 661square meter property located at No. 29 F.
CabahugStreet,CebuCitybelongstotheconjugalpartnership.
Evenifweweretoassumethatthesubjectpropertywasnotconjugal,stillwecannotsustainthevalidityofthe
sale of the property by Joseph, Sr. to defendantappellant Maria Ching, there being overwhelming evidence on
recordsthattheyhavebeenlivingtogetherascommonlawhusbandandwife.Onthisscore,Art.1352oftheCivil
Codeprovides:
"Art.1352.Contractswithoutcause,orwithunlawfulcause,producenoeffectwhatsoever.Thecauseisunlawful
ifitiscontrarytolaw,morals,goodcustoms,publicorderorpublicpolicy."
WethereforefindthatthecontractofsaleinfavorofthedefendantappellantMariaChingwasnullandvoidfor
beingcontrarytomoralsandpublicpolicy.Thepurportedsale,havingbeenmadebyJosephSr.infavorofhis
concubine, undermines the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy vigilantly protects.
Furthermore, the law emphatically prohibits spouses from selling property to each other, subject to certain
exceptions. And this is so because transfers or conveyances between spouses, if allowed during the marriage
would destroy the system of conjugal partnership, a basic policy in civil law. The prohibition was designed to
preventtheexerciseofundueinfluencebyonespouseovertheotherandislikewiseapplicableeventocommon
law relationships otherwise, "the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in
legalunion.9(Underscoringsupplied)
Hence,thepresentpetition,petitionersarguingthattheappellatecourtgravelyerredin:
I.
...APPLYINGTHESTATEPOLICYONPROHIBITIONAGAINSTCONVEYANCESANDTRANSFERSOF
PROPERTIES BETWEEN LEGITIMATE AND COMMON LAW SPOUSES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
THESAMEBEINGFOUNDBYTHECOURTAQUO,ASTHEEXCLUSIVEPROPERTYOFPETITIONER,
AND THAT THE SAME WAS NEVER PART OF THE CONJUGAL PROPERTY OF THE MARRIAGE
BETWEEN RESPONDENTS MOTHER EPIFANIA GOYANKO AND PETITIONERS COMMON LAW
HUSBAND,JOSEPHGOYANKO,SR.,NORTHEEXCLUSIVEORCAPITALPROPERTYOFTHELATTER
ATANYTIMEBEFORETHESAMEWASVALIDLYACQUIREDBYPETITIONER.
II.
. . . NOT FINDING THAT A JURIDICAL RELATION OF TRUST AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER ARTICLES
1448AND1450OFTHENEWCIVILCODECANVALIDLYEXISTBETWEENCOMMONLAWSPOUSES.
III.
...NOTFINDINGTHATACONVEYANCEOVERAPROPERTYMADEBYATRUSTEE,WHOBECAMEAS

SUCHINCONTEMPLATIONOFLAW,ANDWHOHAPPENSTOBEACOMMONLAWHUSBANDOFTHE
BENEFICIARY,ISNOTAVIOLATIONOFASTATEPOLICYONPROHIBITIONAGAINSTCONVEYANCES
ANDTRANSFERSOFPROPERTIESBETWEENLEGITIMATEANDCOMMONLAWSPOUSES.
IV.
. . . ALLOWING RESPONDENTS TO ABANDON THEIR ORIGINAL THEORY OF THEIR CASE DURING
APPEAL.10
ThepertinentprovisionsoftheCivilCodewhichapplytothepresentcaseread:
ART.1352.Contractswithoutcause,orwithunlawfulcause,producenoeffectwhatever.Thecauseisunlawfulif
itiscontrarytolaw,morals,goodcustoms,publicorderorpublicpolicy.
ART.1409.Thefollowingcontractsareinexistentandvoidfromthebeginning:
(1)Thosewhosecause,objectorpurposeiscontrarytolaw,morals,goodcustoms,publicorderorpublic
policy
(2)Thosewhichareabsolutelysimulatedorfictitious
(3)Thosewhosecauseorobjectdidnotexistatthetimeofthetransaction
(4)Thosewhoseobjectisoutsidethecommerceofmen
(5)Thosewhichcontemplateanimpossibleservice
(6)Thosewheretheintentionofthepartiesrelativetotheprincipalobjectofthecontractcannotbe
ascertained
(7)Thoseexpresslyprohibitedordeclaredvoidbylaw.
Thesecontractscannotberatified.Neithercantherighttosetupthedefenseofillegalitybewaived.
ARTICLE1490.Thehusbandandwifecannotsellpropertytoeachother,except:
(1)Whenaseparationofpropertywasagreeduponinthemarriagesettlementsor
(2)WhentherehasbeenajudicialseparationofpropertyunderArticle191.(Underscoringsupplied)
The proscription against sale of property between spouses applies even to common law relationships. So this
CourtruledinCalimlimCanullasv.Hon.Fortun,etc.,etal.:11
Anentthesecondissue,wefindthatthecontractofsalewasnullandvoidforbeingcontrarytomoralsandpublic
policy.Thesalewasmadebyahusbandinfavorofaconcubineafterhehadabandonedhisfamilyand
left the conjugal home where his wife and children lived and from whence they derived their support.
The sale was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy
cherishesandprotects.
Article1409oftheCivilCodestatesinteraliathat:contractswhosecause,object,orpurposesiscontrarytolaw,
morals,goodcustoms,publicorder,orpublicpolicyarevoidandinexistentfromtheverybeginning.
Article1352alsoprovidesthat:"Contractswithoutcause,orwithunlawfulcause,producenoeffectwhatsoever.
Thecauseisunlawfulifitiscontrarytolaw,morals,goodcustoms,publicorder,orpublicpolicy."
Additionally, the law emphatically prohibits the spouses from selling property to each other subject to
certainexceptions. Similarly,donationsbetweenspousesduringmarriageareprohibited.Andthisisso
because if transfers or conveyances between spouses were allowed during marriage, that would destroy the
systemofconjugalpartnership,abasicpolicyincivillaw.Itwasalsodesignedtopreventtheexerciseofundue
influencebyonespouseovertheother,aswellastoprotecttheinstitutionofmarriage,whichisthecornerstone
offamilylaw.Theprohibitionsapplytoacouplelivingashusbandandwifewithoutbenefitofmarriage,
otherwise, "the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal
union."Thoseprovisionsaredictatedbypublicinterestandtheircriterionmustbeimposeduponthewillofthe
parties....12(Italicsintheoriginalemphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
1 w p h i1

AstheconveyanceinquestionwasmadebyGoyangkoinfavorofhiscommonlawwifehereinpetitioner,itwas
nullandvoid.
PetitionersargumentthatatrustrelationshipwascreatedbetweenGoyankoastrusteeandherasbeneficiaryas
providedinArticles1448and1450oftheCivilCodewhichread:
ARTICLE1448.Thereisanimpliedtrustwhenpropertyissold,andthelegalestateisgrantedtoonepartybut
the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the
trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child,
legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably

presumedthatthereisagiftinfavorofthechild.
ARTICLE1450.Ifthepriceofasaleofpropertyisloanedorpaidbyonepersonforthebenefitofanotherandthe
conveyanceismadetothelenderorpayortosecurethepaymentofthedebt,atrustarisesbyoperationoflawin
favorofthepersontowhomthemoneyisloanedorforwhomitispaid.Thelattermayredeemthepropertyand
compelaconveyancethereoftohim.
doesnotpersuade.
Forpetitionerstestimonythatitwasshewhoprovidedthepurchasepriceisuncorroborated.Thatshemayhave
been considered the breadwinner of the family and that there was proof that she earned a living do not
conclusivelyclinchherclaim.
As to the change of theory by respondents from forgery of their fathers signature in the deed of sale to sale
contrarytopublicpolicy,ittoodoesnotpersuade.Generally,apartyinalitigationisnotpermittedtofreelyand
substantially change the theory of his case so as not to put the other party to undue disadvantage by not
accurately and timely apprising him of what he is up against,13 and to ensure that the latter is given the
opportunityduringtrialtorefuteallallegationsagainsthimbypresentingevidencetothecontrary.Inthepresent
case,petitionercannotbesaidtohavebeenputtounduedisadvantageandtohavebeendeniedthechanceto
refute all the allegations against her. For the nullification of the sale is anchored on its illegality perse, it being
violativeoftheabovecitedArticles1352,1409and1490oftheCivilCode.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.
Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA*
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedto
thewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby
certifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedto
thewriteroftheCourtsDivision.
ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*OnLeave.
1Records,p.119.
2Id.at122.
3Id.at40.
4Id.at42.
5Id.at331346.

6Id.at345346.
7CArollo,p.18.
8PennedbyJusticeDelilahVidallonMagtoliswiththeconcurrenceofJusticesJoseL.Sabio,Jr.andHakim

S.Abdulwahid,id.at342346.
9Id.at345346.
10Rollo,pp.3536.
11214Phil.593(1984).
12Id.at598599.
13OlympiaHousing,Inc.v.PanasiaticTravelCorp.,443Phil.385,399400(2003).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation