Philippines ranks 30th most charitable country in the world

Around the world, a record 4.3 billion people helped someone they didn’t know, volunteered time or donated money to a good cause in the preceding month according to the Charities Aid Foundation’s World Giving Index 2024.

The world’s most generous country is Indonesia for the seventh year in a row, where 90% of Indonesians donated money to charity and 65% volunteered their time. Kenya is the second most generous country, rising from third last year. Singapore has risen 19 places to third, increasing its overall index score from 49% to 61% year on year. The positive results for Singapore follow recent Government initiatives to bolster philanthropy and volunteering.

The CAF World Giving Index is one of the biggest surveys on giving ever produced, interviewing millions of people around the world since 2009. This year’s Index includes data from 142 countries with people asked three questions: have they helped a stranger, given money or volunteered for a good cause during the past month.

The CAF World Giving Index 2024 also finds:

The top 10 countries includes only two of the world's largest economies (Indonesia and the United States), while one of the poorest countries in the world – The Gambia – is ranked in the fourth place.

Morocco saw the world’s largest year-on-year increase in donating money, with interviews taking place in the wake of the devastating earthquakes that hit the centre of the country in September 2023. Just two per cent of people donated money to charity in 2022, but this rose to 18% last year, and volunteering rates doubled from 8% to 16%.

Greece is the biggest riser this year, having consistently increased its ranking since 2013. It has a particularly high score for helping a stranger – significantly above the European average and particularly high among young people.

Over the last decade Ukraine, Indonesia, Chad, Russia, and China are the most improved, each having recorded an increase of 25 points or more.

The Philippines climbed 68 notches to 30th out of 142 countries. The country’s score improved by 13 points year on year to 47 points out of 100, the second-largest improvement after Greece.

The Philippines’ score was even better than the global score of 40. The WGI ranks and scores a country by examining three aspects of giving behavior: helping a stranger, donating money, and volunteering time.

wgi_2024_report

.pdf

Download PDF • 5.93MB

Source: Business World

Donation between spouses under a void marriage

What is the consequence of a donation of a piece of land made by a husband to his grandson without the consent of his wife? Is it void or valid? Would it matter if, subsequently, the marriage of the husband and the wife was nullified by a court on the ground of psychological incapacity?

These are the lingering questions answered by the Supreme Court (SC) in its 24 March 2021 decision entitled Nicxon L. Perez Jr. v. Avegail Perez-Senerpida (G.R. 233365).

In this case, spouses Eliodoro and Adelita were the registered owners of a parcel of land in Olongapo City. The spouse had two children Avegail and Adonis. Prior to his marriage with Adelita, Eliodoro was married and had several children, one of whom was Nicxon Perez Sr., who sired Nicxon Jr..

In 2004, Eliodoro donated their land to his grandson, Nicxon Jr., without the conformity of Adelita. In February 2005, Eliodoro filed against Adelita a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the petition and the judgment became final and executory in July 2005. Eliodoro died in 2008 and, a year later, an extrajudicial settlement among the heirs was executed. In 2010, Avegail brought an action of annulment of donation of the land donated by Eliodoro to Nicxon Jr. on the ground that it was prejudicial to her interest because it affected her future inheritance or legitime.

The pressing question now before the SC is whether the donation made by Eliodoro to Nicxon Jr., without the consent of Adelita, is void.

Had Eliodoro’s and Adelita’s marriage not only been nullified on the ground of psychological incapacity (Article 36 of the Family Code or FC), the question could easily be answered by a yes. Article 98 of the FC expressly states that “neither spouse may donate any community property without the consent of the other.” However, since the spouses’ marriage was declared void under Article 36 of the FC, their property regime is not governed by Article 98 but by Article 147, which covers the exclusive cohabitation of a man and woman as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage.

In the present case, the SC noted that under Article 147, “there is unfortunately no direct prohibition on donation of any property acquired during the cohabitation by one party without the consent of the other.” What Article 147 explicitly and directly proscribes is the donation of a party’s share (and not necessarily the entire property) in the property acquired during cohabitation without the consent of the other party, viz.:

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation. (Emphasis supplied)

Notwithstanding, the SC still ruled that the donation made by Eliodoro of the entire property acquired during their cohabitation sans the consent of Adelita is void. Verily, the SC stated: “(i)f a disposition of a party’s share in the property under special co-ownership created by virtue of Article 147 without the consent of the other party is proscribed by law, then, and with more reason, should the disposition of the entire property under such special co-ownership by a party without the other party’s consent be considered void as well.”

The reason for this prohibition, the SC noted, is that if the parties are allowed to dispose of their shares in said properties like in an ordinary co-ownership, then it will destroy their relationship.

Quoting the eminent civilist, Dr. Arturo Tolentino, the SC held that the law “would like to encourage the parties to legalize their union some day and is just smoothing out the way until their relationship ripens into a valid union.”

Source: Divina Law

Validity of donations between common-law spouses

Can a live-in partner donate a property their partner? Is such a a donation valid under the law?

Article 87 of Executive Order 209 s. 1987, otherwise known as "The Family Code of the Philippines," provides:

"Art. 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage."

In the case of Maria B. Ching v. Joseph C. Goyangko, Jr., et al. (GR 165879, Nov. 10, 2006, Ponente: Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales), the Supreme Court ruled:

"The proscription against sale of property between spouses applies even to common law relationships. So this Court ruled in Calimlim-Canullas v. Hon. Fortun, etc., et al.:

"Anent the second issue, we find that the contract of sale was null and void for being contrary to morals and public policy. The sale was made by a husband in favor of a concubine after he had abandoned his family and left the conjugal home where his wife and children lived and from whence they derived their support. The sale was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects.

"Article 1409 of the Civil Code states inter alia that: contracts whose cause, object, or purposes is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy are void and inexistent from the very beginning.

"Article 1352 also provides that: 'Contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause, produce no effect whatsoever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.'

"Additionally, the law emphatically prohibits the spouses from selling property to each other subject to certain exceptions. Similarly, donations between spouses during marriage are prohibited. And this is so because if transfers or conveyances between spouses were allowed during marriage, that would destroy the system of conjugal partnership, a basic policy in civil law. It was also designed to prevent the exercise of undue influence by one spouse over the other and protect the institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of family law. The prohibitions apply to a couple living as husband and wife without benefit of marriage, otherwise, 'the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union.' Those provisions are dictated by public interest and their criterion must be imposed upon the will of the parties...

"As the conveyance in question was made by Goyangko in favor of his common-law-wife-herein petitioner, it was null and void."

Pursuant to the aforesaid provision of the law and the pertinent decision of the Supreme Court, donation between spouses during the marriage, except for gifts of moderate value that may be given in connection with an occasion, is clearly prohibited.

As explained by the Supreme Court, such a prohibition aims to protect the property relations between the spouses. Similarly, the prohibition applies to couples living together as husband and wife, even without the benefit of marriage. Considering that the property was donated by your deceased live-in partner to you, such a donation is null and void because it is strictly prohibited under the law.

Source: Manila Times