TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that donations between unmarried partners during their cohabitation are void, reinforcing the Family Code’s prohibition which extends to those in common-law relationships. This means that just like married couples, individuals in unmarried cohabitation cannot make gratuitous transfers of property to each other. The ruling emphasizes the state’s policy of protecting vulnerable parties in intimate relationships from potential exploitation, regardless of formal marital status. This decision clarifies that properties acquired during cohabitation are treated under a special co-ownership regime where neither partner can unilaterally dispose of their share without the other’s consent.

Love and Land: When Unmarried Partners Face Property Disputes

This case, Perez v. Perez-Senerpida, revolves around a property dispute arising from a donation made within an unmarried cohabitation. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether a man could validly donate property, acquired during a common-law relationship, to his grandson without the consent of his partner. This scenario echoes the legal restrictions placed on married couples regarding property disposition, prompting the Court to examine the extent to which these marital rules apply to unmarried yet cohabiting individuals. The case underscores the complexities of property rights in relationships outside of formal marriage in the Philippines, particularly concerning donations and waivers between partners.

The factual backdrop involves Eliodoro Perez and Adelita Perez, who lived together as husband and wife without marriage. During their cohabitation, they acquired a property registered under both their names. Eliodoro later received a ‘Renunciation and Waiver of Rights’ (RWR) from Adelita, and subsequently donated the entire property to his grandson, Nicxon Perez Jr., without Adelita’s consent. Avegail Perez-Senerpida, Adelita’s daughter, challenged the donation, arguing it was void because Adelita’s consent was not obtained. The lower courts initially sided with Avegail, annulling both the RWR and the donation. Nicxon appealed, arguing that since Eliodoro and Adelita’s marriage was later declared void ab initio, the rules on absolute community property should not apply, and the donation should be valid.

The Supreme Court, while agreeing with Nicxon that the lower courts erred in applying absolute community property rules due to the void marriage, ultimately upheld the nullification of the donation. The Court clarified that because Eliodoro and Adelita lived together without marriage, their property relations are governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, which pertains to co-ownership in cases of void marriages or cohabitation. This article establishes a ‘special co-ownership’ where neither party can dispose of their share in the jointly acquired property without the consent of the other, especially during the cohabitation.

The Court emphasized the prohibition in Article 87 of the Family Code, which voids any donation or gratuitous advantage between spouses during marriage. Critically, Article 87 explicitly extends this prohibition to “persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.” The RWR executed by Adelita in favor of Eliodoro was deemed void as it was a gratuitous transfer between cohabiting partners, lacking valid consideration. As the RWR was void, Eliodoro could not validly claim full ownership to donate the entire property to Nicxon without Adelita’s consent.

Even under the principles of ordinary co-ownership under Article 493 of the Civil Code, Eliodoro could only validly donate his share of the property. However, the Court underscored that Article 147 of the Family Code creates a ‘special co-ownership’ that supersedes the general rules of co-ownership in this context. This special co-ownership under Article 147 specifically restricts unilateral disposition of property by either party during cohabitation without the other’s consent.

Thus, Eliodoro’s donation of the property to Nicxon, made without Adelita’s consent, was declared void. The Supreme Court underscored the policy rationale behind Article 87 and Article 147: to protect the parties in such relationships from undue influence and exploitation, maintaining a parallel protection to that afforded within valid marriages. The ruling reinforces that the legal restrictions on donations are not solely confined to formally married couples but extend to those in de facto unions, recognizing the vulnerabilities inherent in intimate partnerships regardless of legal formalities.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Perez, Jr. v. Perez-Senerpida, G.R. No. 233365, March 24, 2021