G.R. No. L-57499 June 22, 1984 CALIMLIM- CANULLAS vs.

FORTUN FACTS: Petitioner Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas was married to Fernando Canullas. They have children and lived in the residential land in question which Fernando inherited the land after his father died. Years after, Fernando abandoned his family and was living with rivate res ondent Cora!on. "#oth were convicted of concubinage in a $udgment rendered the Court of First %nstance which has become final during the endency of this etition.& Fernado sold the said inherited land with the house thereon to Cora!on. 'nable to ta(e ossession of the said ro erty, Cora!on filed a com laint for quieting of title and damages against Mercedes. )owever, Mercedes claimed that the sale of the land, with the house and im rovements, was null and void because they are con$ugal ro erties and she had not given her consent. *es ondent Court "Fortun as $udge& rinci ally declared Cora!on as the lawful owner of the land in question and +,- of the house erected on said land. ' on reconsideration rayed for by Mercedes, res ondent Court amended its decision and resolved that indeed Cora!on was the true and lawful owner of the land but declared the sale of the con$ugal house and im rovements null and void. ISSUES: +. ./0 the construction of a con$ugal house on the e1clusive ro erty of the husband ipso facto gave the land the character of con$ugal ro erty. -. ./0 the sale of the lot together with the house and im rovements thereon was valid. EL!: /n %ssue 0o. + 0o. 2econd aragra h of 3rticle +45 of the Civil Code reads6 #uildings constructed at the e1 ense of the artnershi during the marriage on land belonging to one of the s ouses also ertain to the artnershi , but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the s ouse who owns the same. The Court ruled that both the land and the building belong to the con$ugal artnershi but the con$ugal artnershi is indebted to the husband for the value of the land. The s ouse owning the lot becomes a creditor of the con$ugal artnershi for the value of the lot, which value would be reimbursed at the liquidation of the con$ugal artnershi .

/n %ssue 0o. 0o. 3rticle +789 of the Civil Code states inter alia that6 contracts whose cause, ob$ect, or ur ose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, ublic order, or ublic olicy are void and ine1istent from the very beginning. 3rticle +:4- also rovides that6 ;Contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause, produce no effect whatsoever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, ublic order, or ublic olicy.; %n the case at bar, the sale was made by a husband in favor of a concubine after he had abandoned his family and left the con$ugal home where his wife and children lived and from whence they derived their su ort. %t was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which ublic olicy cherishes and rotects. )ence, the Court ruled that the sale is null and void being contrary to morals and ublic olicy. 3dditionally, the law em hatically rohibits the s ouses "also include cou les living as husband and wife without benefit of marriage& from selling and donating ro erty to each other during marriage sub$ect to certain e1ce tions. 2uch rohibitions were also designed to revent the e1ercise of undue influence by one s ouse over the other, as well as to rotect the institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of family law.