1. Matabuena vs, Cervantes [38 SCRA 284. March 31, 1971] PARTI S! Plaintiffs-appellant Defendant-appellee "ACTS!

Preliminary In 1956, herein appellants brother Feli Matabuena donated a pie!e of lot to his !o""on-la# spouse, herein appellee Petronila Cervantes$ Feli and Petronila %ot "arried onl& in 196' or si &ears after the deed of donation #as e e!uted$ Five "onths later, or (epte"ber 1), 196', Feli died$ *hereafter, appellant Cornelia Matabuena, b& reason of bein% the onl& sister and nearest !ollateral relative of the de!eased, filed a !lai" over the propert&, b& virtue of a an affidavit of self-ad+udi!ation e e!uted b& her in 196', had the land de!lared in her na"e and paid the estate and inheritan!e ta es thereon$ *he lo#er !ourt of (orso%on de!lared that the donation #as valid inas"u!h as it #as "ade at the ti"e #hen Feli and Petronila #ere not &et spouses, renderin% ,rti!le 1)) of the Civil Code inappli!able$ Procedural history -o#er !ourt : ISS# ! 1hether or not the ban on donation bet#een spouses durin% a "arria%e applies to a !o""onla# relationship$ $ %&! 23( R#% ! 1hile ,rti!le 1)) of the Civil Code !onsiders as void a donation bet#een the spouses durin% "arria%e, poli!& !onsideration of the "ost e i%ent !hara!ter as #ell as the di!tates of "oralit& re4uires that the sa"e prohibition should appl& to a !o""on-la# relationship$ APP%ICATI'(! If the poli!& of the la# is, in the lan%ua%e of the opinion of the then 5usti!e 5$6$-$ .e&es of that Court, 7to prohibit donations in favor of the other !onsort and his des!endants be!ause of fear of undue and i"proper pressure and influen!e upon the donor, a pre+udi!e deepl& rooted in our an!ient la#8 then there is ever& reason to appl& the sa"e prohibitive poli!& to persons livin% to%ether as husband and #ife #ithout benefit of nuptials$ For it is not to be doubted that assent to su!h irre%ular !onne!tion for .uled in favor of defendant$ /ot &et "arried$ 0en!e, valid donation$ : : Cornelia Matabuena Petronila Cervantes

thirt& &ears bespea9s %reater influen!e of one part& over the other, so that the dan%er that the la# see9s to avoid is !orrespondin%l& in!reased$ Moreover, as alread& pointed out b& :lpian ;in his lib$ )' ad (abinu", fr$ 1<, it #ould not be +ust that su!h donations should subsist lest the !ondition of those #ho in!urred %uilt should turn out to be better$ (o lon% as "arria%e re"ains the !ornerstone of our fa"il& la#, reason and "oralit& ali9e de"and that the disabilities atta!hed to "arria%e should li9e#ise atta!h to !on!ubina%e$ ,s stated in 6uenaventura vs$ 6autista ;5= >? )6@9, 195A<, if the poli!& of the la# is to prohibit donations in favor of the other !onsort and his des!endants be!ause of fear of undue and i"proper pressure and influen!e upon the donor, then there is ever& reason to appl& the sa"e prohibitive poli!& to persons livin% to%ether as husband and #ife #ithout the benefit of nuptials$ *he la!9 of validit& of the donation b& the de!eased to appellee does not ne!essaril& result in appellant havin% e !lusive ri%ht to the disputed propert&$ ,s a #ido#, Cervantes is entitled to one-half of the inheritan!e, and the survivin% sister to the other half$ ,rti!le 1==1, Civil Code: (hould brothers and sisters or their !hildren survive #ith the #ido# or #ido#er, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritan!e and the brothers and sisters or their !hildren to the other half$