Liguez vs.

CA

− Liguez filed a case against the wife of Lopez and his heirs (respondent) to recover a parcel of land in

 Davao. She contended that she is the legal owner of such property pursuant to a deed of donation of said 
 land
executed by the late owner, Lopez. 


− The private respondents countered that the donation was null and void for having an illicit causa or

 consideration, which was the plaintiff's entering into marital relations with Salvador P. Lopez, a married 
 man. 


− CA found that (1) the donation was made in view of the desire of Salvador P. Lopez, a man of mature

 years, to have sexual relations with appellant Conchita Liguez; and (2) that Lopez had confessed to his love for
appellant to the instrumental witnesses, with the remark that her parents would not allow Lopez to live with her
unless he first donated the land in question. 


ISSUE: Was the donation void for having an illicit cause? – YES 


− SC, citing Manresa, ruled that while maintaining the distinction and upholding the inoperativeness of
the 
 motives of the parties to determine the validity of the contract, expressly excepts from the rule those

 contracts that are conditioned upon the attainment of the motives of either party. 


− In the present case, it is scarcely disputable that Lopez would not have conveyed the property in
question 
 had he known that appellant would refuse to cohabit with him; so that the cohabitation was an implied

 condition to the donation, and being unlawful, necessarily tainted the donation itself. 


− In making the donation in question, the late Salvador P. Lopez was not moved exclusively by the desire
to 
 benefit appellant Conchita Liguez, but also to secure her cohabiting with him, so that he could gratify his
sexual impulses. 


Facts:

Dionisio Rellosa sold to Gaw Chee Hun (A Chinese Citizen) a parcel of land and a house for P25,
000.

It was agreed that Rellosa would lease the land on the condition that Gaw Chee Hun obtain the
approval of the Japanese Military Administration (JMA) in accordance with Seirei No. 6 issued on
April 2, 1943.

Gaw was unable to get the approval from the JMA so Relloso asked the court for the lease contract to
be considered void and asked for the return of the title of the property. Relloso also contends that the
sale was void under article XIII, section 5, of our Constitution

Gaw responds stating the salewas absolute, unconditional, and valid. Gaw also contends that Rellosa
is guilty of estoppel.

TC and CA both declared sale and lease valid. Relloso appeals to SC.

Issues/Held/Ratio:

Can Rellosa have the sale declared null and void and recover the property considering that this was a
rescission of contract?
No.

The court applied the doctrine of PARI DELICTO. The doctrine states that “the proposition is
universal that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained
for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money
agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation.

Quoting a similar case, the court stated that “even if the plaintiffs can still invoke the Constitution they
are now prevented from doing because of their guilty knowledge that what they were doing was in
violation of the Constitution. A party to an illegal contract cannot come into a