G.R. No. 125172; June 26, 1998
Posted by: Ana R. Bonita on July 26, 2018
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
On the Second Issue:
Posted by: Ana R. Bonita on July 26, 2018
DOCTRINE:
- The sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the husband and the wife. The absence of the consent of one renders the sale null and void, while the vitiation thereof makes it merely voidable. Only in the latter case can ratification cure the defect.
FACTS:
- Over the objection of private respondent Gilda Corpuz and while she was in Manila seeking employment, her husband Judie Corpuz sold to the Petitioners-spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang one half of their conjugal property, consisting of their residence and the lot on which it stood.
- On March 11, 1990, private respondent returned home. For staying in their house sold by her husband, private respondent was complained against by Petitioners before the Barangay authorities.
- On March 16, 1990, the parties thereat signed a document known as "amicable settlement". In full, the settlement provides for, to wit:
"That respondent, Mrs. Gilda Corpuz and her three children, namely: Junie, Hariet and Judie to leave voluntarily the house of Mr. and Mrs. Antonio Guiang, where they are presently boarding without any charge, on or before April 7, 1990."
- Believing that she had received the shorter end of the bargain, private respondent went to the Barangay to question her signature on the amicable settlement.
- On May 28, 1990, Private Respondent filed an Amended Complainant against her husband and Petitioner-Spouses. The said Complaint sought the declaration of a certain deed of sale, which involved the conjugal property of private respondent and her husband, null and void.
ISSUE:
- Whether or not the assailed Deed of Transfer of Rights was validly executed.
- Whether or not the "amicable settlement" validly ratified the Deed of Transfer of Rights.
HELD:
On the First Issue:
- Petitioners insist that the questioned Deed of Transfer of Rights was validly executed by the parties-litigants in good faith and for valuable consideration.
- The absence of private respondent's consent merely rendered the Deed voidable under Article 1390 of the Civil Code, which provides:
"Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties:
x x x x x x x x x
(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud."
These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification.
- The error in petitioners' contention is evident. Article 1390, par. 2, refers to contracts visited by vices of consent, i.e., contracts which were entered into by a person whose consent was obtained and vitiated through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. In this instance, private respondent's consent to the contract of sale of their conjugal property was totally inexistent or absent.
- This being the case, said contract properly falls within the ambit of Article 124 of the Family Code, which was correctly applied by the to lower court:
"Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership properly shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision."
- In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse.
- In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.
- In sum, the nullity of the contract of sale is premised on the absence of private respondent's consent. To constitute a valid contract, the Civil Code requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) cause, (2) object, and (3) consent, the last element being indubitably absent in the case at bar.
On the Second Issue:
- Insisting that the contract of sale was merely voidable, petitioners aver that it was duly ratified by the contending parties through the "amicable settlement" they executed on March 16, 1990.
- The position is not well taken. The trial and the appellate courts have resolved this issue in favor of the private respondent. The trial court correctly held:
"By the specific provision of the law [Art. 1390, Civil Code] therefore, the Deed to Transfer of Rights (Exh. "A") cannot be ratified, even by an "amicable settlement". The participation by some barangay authorities in the "amicable settlement" cannot otherwise validate an invalid act. Moreover, it cannot be denied that the "amicable settlement (Exh. "B") entered into by plaintiff Gilda Corpuz and defendant spouses Guiang is a contract. It is a direct offshoot of the Deed of Transfer of Rights (Exh. "A"). By express provision of law, such a contract is also void. Thus, the legal provision, to wit:
Art. 1422. A contract which is the direct result of a previous illegal contract, is also void and inexistent. (Civil Code of the Philippines)."
- In summation therefore, both the Deed of transfer of Rights (Exh. "A") and the "amicable settlement" (Exh. "3") are null and void.
- Doctrinally and clearly, a void contract cannot be ratified.
- WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the challenged Decision and Resolution. Costs against petitioners.
