Agpay v Palang GR No.

116668, July 28, 1997

What did we learn

Provisions covered

What the case taught us

Agpay v Palang GR No. 116668, July 28, 1997

Issue: Whether or not a property acquired by the second wife in a bigamous marriage,
absent the proof of her actual contribution, revert to the conjugal partnership of
the first marriage
Who owns the riceland and house and lot?

Facts: Miguel Palang married Carlina (or Cornelia) Vallesterol to whom he had a child,
Herminia. When Miguel returned from his work in Hawaii, he contracted his second
marriage with Erlinda Agapay, a 19 yrs old to whom he eventually had a child,
Kristopher. At 22 yrs old, Erlinda acquired a house and lot which was allegedly paid
for by Miguel. The TCT of which was issued in her name. Prior their marriage,
Miguel and Erlinda also jointly purchased a parcel of riceland registered under their
names. As a compromise and end a case filed by the Cornelia, Miguel and Cornelia
executed a Deed of Donation of their conjugal property to their only child, Herminia.
Two years prior death of Miguel, Miguel and Erlinda were convicted of Concubinage
upon Carlina's complaint. Carlina and Herminia then instituted a case for recovery
of ownership and possession of the riceland and the house and lot purchased by
Miguel during his cohabitation with Erlinda. Erlinda contended that while the
riceland is registered in their names (Miguel and Erlinda), she had already given her
half of the property to their son Kristopher. She added that the house and lot is her
sole property as she is engaged in a buy and sell business and runs a sari-sari
store. Erlinda added that Carlina is precluded from claiming aforesaid properties
since the latter had already donated their conjugal estate to Herminia.

Ruling: No, a property acquired by the second wife in a bigamous marriage, absent the
proof of her actual contribution, revert to the conjugal partnership of the first
marriage.

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 their respective contributions. It must be stressed that
actual contribution is required by this provision.

Here, while Erlinda is engaged in the business of buy and sell and had a sari-
sari store, she failed to prove that she actually contributed money to buy the subject
riceland.

Hence, there is no basis to justify her co-ownership with Miguel over the riceland.
Consequently, the riceland should revert to the conjugal partnership property of the
deceased Miguel and Carlina Palang.

Other Article 87 of the Family Code expressly provides that the prohibition against
provisions donations between spouses now applies to donations between persons living
together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, for otherwise, the condition
of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union.