PAULINA GARCIA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO SAÑGIL, ALEJANDRO SAÑGIL AND SIXTO JOAQUIN, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

It appears from the record that until June 13, 1923, Alejandro
and Roberto Sañgil and one Jose Flores were the owners of a rice mill, the
latter having invested P4,500 in the mill and each of the others having
contributed P10,500. On the date mentioned, Alejandro Sañgil executed a deed of
donation, absolute and irrevocable, of his share in the rice mill in favor of
the plaintiff. Subsequent thereto, but on the same day, Alejandro and the
plaintiff were married. The marriage did not prove a success, and in January,
1925, the spouses separated. Roberto Sañgil was then the manager of the rice
mill, and the plaintiff made demand upon him for her share of the profits of the
business, but Roberto refused to comply with her demand, and the plaintiff
thereupon brought the present action for the dissolution of the partnership and
for an accounting of its profits from June 13, 1923. At the same time she
brought another action against Alejandro Sañgil for a maintenance allowance, and
by an order issued on March 30, 1925, Alejandro was ordered to pay her P30 a
month for her maintenance pendente lite. On August 20, 1925, the defendant Sixto
Joaquin brought an action against Alejandro Sañgil on a promissory note for
P15,000, and six days later Alejandro filed an answer, which in effect amounted
to a confession of judgment, and consequently the Court of First Instance
rendered such judgment upon the pleadings. Execution was thereupon levied pn the
property of Alejandro Sañgil as well as on the share of the herein plaintiff in
the rice mill, and at the execution sale the property levied upon was bid in by
Joaquin.

Upon trial of the present case the court below rendered
judgment in favor of the plaintiff and held that by virtue of the donation made
on June 13, 1923, she was the absolute and exclusive owner of the share in the
rice mill mentioned in the donation and that she was entitled to the dividends
and profits of said share from the date of the filing of the complaint; that the
said share was paraphernal property of the plaintiff; and that the sale of the
aforesaid share, under the execution levied in the action brought by Sixto
Joaquin, was null and void. It was therefore ordered that the defendant Roberto
Sañgil, as manager of the rice mill, should within the period of fifteen days
after the decision became final, present the accounts of the profits and losses
resulting from the operation of the rice mill subsequent to January 31, 1925, in
which account the dividends and profits delivered to Alejandro Sañgil and Sixto
Joaquin from said date should be specified for the purpose of determining the
sums due the plaintiff. The court further ordered Alejandro Sañgil to pay the
costs of the action. From this judgment all of the defendants appealed.

The appellants’ principal contention is that the donation
above-mentioned was made during the marriage of the spouses and that it
therefore is null and void under article 1334 of the Civil Code. The deed of
donation has not been forwarded to this court, and, in determining the question,
we must therefore rely on the findings of the court below upon that point. In
its decision the court says:

“As a question of fact, the court finds that a preponderance of
the evidence shows that the deed of donation was executed moments before the
celebration of the civil marriage on June 13, 1923. In said document, Alejandro
Sañgil states that he is a widower, and it also appears therein that Paulina
Garcia is unmarried and 22 years of age; that Alejandro Sañgil was a shareholder
in the rice mill in question to the extent of P10,500; and that Paulina Garcia,
having agreed to accept Alejandro Sañgil as husband, that is to say, by reason
of the union agreed upon, the said Alejandro Sañgil made donation absolute and
irrevocable to his future wife of all the rights, shares, interest, and utility
in the rice mill in question.”

Upon the facts so found, it is clear that the donation was
executed before the marriage and that therefore article 1334 of the Civil Code
is not applicable to the case. As a donation by reason of marriage, it is
governed by the provisions of articles 1327-1333 of said Code. Article 1393
cited by the appellant has, as far as we can see, no bearing upon the question;
that article relates to conjugal property and does not prohibit donations by
reason of marriage. The other contentions of the appellants deserve no
discussion.

The appealed judgment is affirmed with the costs against the
appellants jointly and severally. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, and
Villa-Real, JJ., concur.