sale of conjugal property without the consent of one spouse is null and void.”- SC

-

"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.” - SC

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case involves Spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang (petitioners) who purchased a portion of conjugal property from Judie Corpuz, the husband of Gilda Corpuz (private respondent), without Gilda’s consent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Koronadal, South Cotabato and subsequently the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled the sale null and void under Article 124 of the Family Code, which requires spousal consent for the disposition of conjugal property. The petitioners, claiming that the transaction was merely voidable and later ratified through an amicable settlement, sought relief from the Supreme Court (SC).

Arguments

  1. Petitioners (Spouses Guiang):

    • The Deed of Transfer of Rights was validly executed and merely voidable due to the absence of spousal consent, not void.
    • The transaction was ratified by Gilda Corpuz when she signed the amicable settlement before barangay officials.
    • The lower courts erred in recognizing Gilda’s ownership over the property.

  2. Respondent (Gilda Corpuz):

    • The sale of conjugal property without her consent is void ab initio under Article 124 of the Family Code.
    • The amicable settlement does not ratify the transaction since a void contract cannot be ratified.
    • The lower courts correctly declared her ownership over the property.

Factual Background with Procedural Process

  • December 24, 1968 – Gilda Corpuz and Judie Corpuz married.
  • February 14, 1983 – The spouses purchased a 421 sq. meter lot in Koronadal, South Cotabato, under a conditional deed of sale.
  • April 22, 1988 – The couple sold one-half of the lot to Spouses Guiang, who built a house on it.
  • June 1989 – Gilda left for Manila to seek employment abroad, with her husband’s consent.
  • January 1990 – While Gilda was away, her husband attempted to sell the remaining half of the conjugal property, including their house, to Spouses Guiang. Their daughter Harriet objected and informed Gilda via letter.
  • March 1, 1990 – Judie Corpuz sold the remaining portion of the property to Spouses Guiang through a Deed of Transfer of Rights for ₱30,000.00, without Gilda’s consent.
  • March 11, 1990 – Gilda returned home and found that her husband was absent. She continued staying in the house with her children.
  • March 16, 1990 – Spouses Guiang filed a barangay case for trespassing against Gilda. The barangay officials mediated an amicable settlement, which stated that Gilda and her children would vacate the house by April 7, 1990.
  • May 28, 1990 – Gilda filed a complaint before the RTC of Koronadal, South Cotabato (Branch 25) to declare the sale null and void.
  • September 9, 1992 – The RTC ruled in favor of Gilda, declaring the sale null and void and recognizing her ownership over the remaining portion of the property.
  • January 30, 1996 – The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling.
  • May 28, 1996 – The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
  • Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Lower Court Ruling (RTC of Koronadal, South Cotabato, Branch 25)

  • Declared the Deed of Transfer of Rights (March 1, 1990) and the Amicable Settlement (March 16, 1990) null and void.
  • Recognized Gilda Corpuz’s ownership over the remaining one-half portion of the property.
  • Ordered Gilda to reimburse ₱9,000.00 to Spouses Guiang for assuming her unpaid balance to the original seller and ₱379.62 for realty taxes paid.

Appellate Court Ruling (Court of Appeals, CA-G.R. CV No. 41758)

  • Affirmed the RTC ruling, holding that any sale of conjugal property without spousal consent is void.
  • Rejected the claim that the amicable settlement ratified the sale, citing Article 1409 of the Civil Code, which bars ratification of void contracts.
  • Denied the motion for reconsideration.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the Deed of Transfer of Rights was void or merely voidable.
  2. Whether the Amicable Settlement ratified the sale.

Supreme Court Ruling with Ratio Decidendi

Ruling:

  • The petition is denied. The CA and RTC rulings are affirmed. The sale is void, not merely voidable.
  • Costs against petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi:

  1. A sale of conjugal property without spousal consent is void.

    • Article 124 of the Family Code:

      "The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void."

    • The SC explained that under Article 124, the sale by Judie Corpuz alone is void, not merely voidable.

  2. A void contract cannot be ratified.

    • Article 1409 of the Civil Code:

      "The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning: (1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy; (2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious; (3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction; (4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men; (5) Those which contemplate an impossible service; (6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal object of the contract cannot be ascertained; (7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law."

    • Since the contract is void from the beginning, the amicable settlement cannot validate or ratify it.

  3. The "amicable settlement" was also void.

    • Article 1422 of the Civil Code:

      "A contract which is the direct result of a previous illegal contract is also void and inexistent."

    • Since the amicable settlement arose from a void sale, it was also void and inexistent.

  4. Petitioners cannot claim the property based on the agreement with Judie Corpuz.

    • The sale did not transfer any legal title, and Gilda Corpuz remained the lawful owner.
    • The SC rejected Spouses Guiang’s claim that it was a continuing offer under Article 124.
G.R. No. 125172, June 26, 1998 – Spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang v. Court of Appeals and Gilda Corpuz 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭.

-
Image
  𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭. [G.R. No. 189255 June 17, 2015]  "Aside from the control test, the Supreme Court has also used the economic reality test in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties."  "Under this test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the [totality of circumstances] surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties." In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, we observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control [...] to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.  Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activi...
Read more

SC applied the "economic dependency test" and ruled a Lazada delivery rider as a regular employee.

-
Image
  ANTECEDENTS   In February 2016, Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines,5 Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong (collectively, riders) were hired as riders by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (Lazada). They were primarily tasked to pick up items from sellers and deliver them to Lazada's warehouse. Each of them signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (Contract) which states that they will be paid P1,200.00 per day as service fee. Respondents maintain that the Contract they signed with petitioners explicitly states that there is no employer-employee relationship between them. SC RULING   When the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without fixed terms. SPONSORED   Bar Q&A (2024 Ed.) Law Questions Criminal Commercial Civil Political Labor Taxation Ethi...
Read more

Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023

-
Image
  Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023 Q. No. 2 | Political Law “Sulu Second District Representative Alfonso died during the second year of his term. House Speaker Rodil then designated Sulu First District Representative Midas as the legislative caretaker for the remaining period of the term of Alfonso. Upon the prodding of majority of the constituents of the Sulu Second District who are invoking their right to representation, the members of the party of Alfonso filed a petition before the Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Rodil to call for a special election in their district.   Will the petition prosper? Explain[.]” Suggested Answer: Republic Act No. 6645, December 28, 1987 , AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF FILING A VACANCY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES Section 1.  In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least eighteen (18) months or in the House of Representatives at least (1) year before the next regular election ...
Read more