Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 125172 June 26, 1998
Spouses ANTONIO an !U"#IMIN$A GUIANG, petitioners,
vs.
COURT O% APPEA!S an GI!$A COPU", respondents.

PANGANI&AN, J.:
The sale of a conu!al propert" re#uires the consent of both the husband and the $ife.
The absence of the consent of one renders the sale null and void, $hile the vitiation
thereof %a&es it %erel" voidable. Onl" in the latter case can ratification cure the defect.
The Case
These $ere the principles that !uided the 'ourt in decidin! this petition for revie$ of
the Decision
1
dated (anuar" )*, +,,- and the Resolution
2
dated Ma" ./, +,,-,
pro%ul!ated b" the 'ourt of 0ppeals in '012R 'V No. 3+45/, affir%in! the Decision of
the lo$er court and den"in! reconsideration, respectivel".
On Ma" ./, +,,*, Private Respondent 2ilda 'orpu6 filed an 0%ended 'o%plainant
'

a!ainst her husband (udie 'orpu6 and Petitioner1Spouses 0ntonio and 7u6vi%inda
2uian!. The said 'o%plaint sou!ht the declaration of a certain deed of sale, $hich
involved the conu!al propert" of private respondent and her husband, null and void.
The case $as raffled to the Re!ional Trial 'ourt of 8oronadal, South 'otabato, 9ranch
.5. In due course, the trial court rendered a Decision
(
dated Septe%ber ,, +,,.,
disposin! as follo$:
5
0''ORDIN27;, ud!%ent is rendered for the plaintiff and a!ainst the defendants,
+. Declarin! both the Deed of Transfer of Ri!hts dated March +, +,,* <=>h. ?0?@ and
the ?a%icable settle%ent? dated March +-, +,,* <=>h. ?9?@ as null void and of no effectA
.. Reco!ni6in! as la$ful and valid the o$nership and possession of plaintiff 2ilda
'orpu6 over the re%ainin! one1half portion of 7ot ,, 9loc& /, <7R'@ Psd1+-53*, $hich
has been the subect of the Deed of Transfer of Ri!hts <=>h. ?0?@A
). Orderin! plaintiff 2ilda 'orpu6 to rei%burse defendants 7u6vi%inda 2uian! the
a%ount of NIN= TBOCS0ND <P,,***.**@ P=SOS correspondin! to the pa"%ent %ade
b" defendants 2uian!s to Manuel 'alleo for the unpaid balance of the account of
plaintiff in favor of Manuel 'alleo, and another su% of P)4,.-. representin! one1half of
the a%ount of realt" ta>es paid b" defendants 2uian!s on 7ot ,, 9loc& /, <7R'@ Psd1
+-53*,, both $ith le!al interests thereon co%puted fro% the finalit" of the decision.
No pronounce%ent as to costs in vie$ of the factual circu%stances of the case.
Dissatisfied, petitioners1spouses filed an appeal $ith the 'ourt of 0ppeals. Respondent
'ourt, in its challen!ed Decision, ruled as follo$:
6
DB=R=FOR=, the appealed of the lo$er court in 'ivil 'ase No. .*3 is hereb"
0FFIRM=D b" this 'ourt. No costs considerin! plaintiff1appelleeEs failure to file her brief
despite notice.
Reconsideration $as si%ilarl" denied b" the sa%e court in its assailed Resolution:
7
Findin! that the issues raised in defendants1appellants %otion for reconsideration of
Our decision in this case of (anuar" )*, +,,-, to be a %ere rehash of the sa%e issues
$hich $e have alread" passed upon in the said decision, and there Fbein!G no co!ent
reason to disturb the sa%e, this 'ourt R=SO7V=D to D=N; the instant %otion for
reconsideration for lac& of %erit.
The Facts
The facts of this case are si%ple. Over the obection of private respondent and $hile
she $as in Manila see&in! e%plo"%ent, her husband sold to the petitioners1spouses
one half of their conu!al peopert", consistin! of their residence and the lot on $hich it
stood. The circu%stances of this sale are set forth in the Decision of Respondent 'ourt,
$hich #uoted fro% the Decision of the trial court as follo$s:
8
+. Plaintiff 2ilda 'orpu6 and defendant (udie 'orpu6 are le!all" %arried spouses. The"
$ere %arried on Dece%ber .3, +,-/ in 9acolod 'it", before a ud!e. This is ad%itted
1
b" defendants1spouses 0ntonio and 7u6vi%inda 2uian! in their ans$er, and also
ad%itted b" defendant (udie 'orpu6 $hen he testified in court <tsn. p. ), (une ,, +,,.@,
althou!h the latter sa"s that the" $ere %arried in +,-4. The couple have three children,
na%el": (unie H +/ "ears old, Barriet H +4 "ears of a!e, and (odie or (oi, the
"oun!est, $ho $as +5 "ears of a!e in 0u!ust, +,,* $hen her %other testified in court.
So%eti%e on Februar" +3, +,/), the couple 2ilda and (udie 'orpu6, $ith plaintiff1$ife
2ilda 'orpu6 as vendee, bou!ht a 3.+ s#. %eter lot located in 9aran!a" 2en. Paulino
Santos <9o. +@, 8oronadal, South 'otabato, and particularl" &no$n as 7ot ,, 9loc& /,
<7R'@ Psd1+-53*, fro% Manuel 'alleo $ho si!ned as vendor throu!h a conditional
deed of sale for a total consideration of P+3,4)5.**. The consideration $as pa"able in
install%ent, $ith ri!ht of cancellation in favor of vendor should vendee fail to pa" three
successive install%ents <=>h. ?.?, tsn p. -, Februar" +3, +,,*@.
.. So%eti%e on 0pril .., +,//, the couple 2ilda and (udie 'orpu6 sold one1half portion
of their 7ot No. ,, 9loc& /, <7R'@ Psd1+-53*, to the defendants1spouses 0ntonio and
7u6vi%inda 2uian!. The latter have since then occupied the one1half portion FandG built
their house thereon <tsn. p. 3, Ma" .., +,,.@. The" are thus adoinin! nei!hbors of the
'orpu6es.
). Plaintiff 2ilda 'orpu6 left for Manila so%eti%e in (une +,/,. She $as tr"in! to loo&
for $or& abroad, in FtheG Middle =ast. Cnfortunatel", she beca%e a victi% of an
unscrupulous ille!al recruiter. She $as not able to !o abroad. She sta"ed for so%eti%e
in Manila ho$ever, co%in! bac& to 8oronadal, South 'otabato, . . . on March ++, +,,*.
PlaintiffEs departure for Manila to loo& for $or& in the Middle =ast $as $ith the consent
of her husband (udie 'orpu6 <tsn. p. +-, 0u!. +., +,,*A p. +* Sept. -, +,,+@.
0fter his $ifeEs departure for Manila, defendant (udie 'orpu6 seldo% $ent ho%e to the
conu!al d$ellin!. Be sta"ed %ost of the ti%e at his place of $or& at Sa%ahan! Na"on
9uildin!, a hotel, restaurant, and a cooperative. Dau!hter Berriet 'orpu6 $ent to
school at 8in!Es 'olle!e, 9o. +, 8oronadal, South 'otabato, but she $as at the sa%e
ti%e $or&in! as household help of, and sta"in! at, the house of Mr. Panes. Ber brother
(unie $as not $or&in!. Ber "oun!er sister (odie <(oie@ $as !oin! to school. Ber
%other so%eti%es sent the% %one" <tsn. p. +3, Sept. -, +,,+.@
So%eti%e in (anuar" +,,*, Barriet 'orpu6 learned that her father intended to sell the
re%ainin! one1half portion includin! their house, of their ho%elot to defendants
2uian!s. She $rote a letter to her %other infor%in! her. She F2ilda 'orpu6G replied that
she $as obectin! to the sale. Barriet, ho$ever, did not infor% her father about thisA but
instead !ave the letter to Mrs. 7u6vi%inda 2uian! so that she F2uian!G $ould advise
her father <tsn. pp. +-1+4, Sept. -, +,,+@.
3. Bo$ever, in the absence of his $ife 2ilda 'orpu6, defendant (udie 'orpu6 pushed
throu!h the sale of the re%ainin! one1half portion of 7ot ,, 9loc& /, <7R'@ Psd1+-53*,.
On March +, +,,*, he sold to defendant 7u6vi%inda 2uian! thru a docu%ent &no$n as
?Deed of Transfer of Ri!hts? <=>h. ?0?@ the re%ainin! one1half portion of their lot and
the house standin! thereon for a total consideration of P)*,***.** of $hich P5,***.**
$as to be paid in (une, +,,*. Transferor (udie 'orpu6Es children (unie and Barriet
si!ned the docu%ent as $itness.
Four <3@ da"s after March +, +,,* or on March 5, +,,*, obviousl" to cure $hatever
defect in defendant (udie 'orpu6Es title over the lot transferred, defendant 7u6vi%inda
2uian! as vendee e>ecuted another a!ree%ent over 7ot ,, 9loc& /, <7R'@ Psd1+-53*/
<=>h. ?)?@, this ti%e $ith Manuela (i%ene6 'alleo, a $ido$ of the ori!inal re!istered
o$ner fro% $ho% the couple (udie and 2ilda 'orpu6 ori!inall" bou!ht the lot <=>h.
?.?@, $ho si!ned as vendor for a consideration of P,,***.**. Defendant (udie 'orpu6
si!ned as a $itness to the sale <=>h. ?)10?@. The ne$ sale <=>h. ?)?@ describes the lot
sold as 7ot /, 9loc& ,, <7R'@ Psd1+-53*/ but it is obvious fro% the %ass of evidence
that the correct lot is 7ot /, 9loc& ,, <7R'@ Psd1+-53*,, the ver" lot earlier sold to the
couple 2ilda and (udie 'orpu6.
5. So%eti%es on March ++, +,,*, plaintiff returned ho%e. She found her children
sta"in! $ith other households. Onl" (unie $as sta"in! in their house. Barriet and (oi
$ere $ith Mr. Panes. 2ilda !athered her children to!ether and sta"ed at their house.
Ber husband $as no$here to be found. She $as infor%ed b" her children that their
father had a $ife alread".
-. For sta"in! in their house sold b" her husband, plaintiff $as co%plained a!ainst b"
defendant 7u6vi%inda 2uian! and her husband 0ntonio 2uian! before the 9aran!a"
authorities of 9aran!a" 2eneral Paulino Santos <9o. +@, 8oronadal, South 'otabato,
for trespassin! <tsn. p. )3, 0u!. +4, +,,*@. The case $as doc&eted b" the baran!a"
authorities as 9aran!a" 'ase No. )/ for ?trespassin!?. On March +-, +,,*, the parties
thereat si!ned a docu%ent &no$n as ?a%icable settle%ent?. In full, the settle%ent
provides for, to $it:
That respondent, Mrs. 2ilda 'orpu6 and her three children, na%el": (unie, Bariet and
(udie to leave voluntaril" the house of Mr. and Mrs. 0ntonio 2uian!, $here the" are
presentl" boardin! $ithout an" char!e, on or before 0pril 4, +,,*.
F0I7 NOT CND=R TB= P=N07T; OF TB= 70D.
9elievin! that she had received the shorter end of the bar!ain, plaintiff to the 9aran!a"
'aptain of 9aran!a" Paulino Santos to #uestion her si!nature on the a%icable
settle%ent. She $as referred ho$ever to the Office1In1'har!e at the ti%e, a certain Mr.
2
de la 'ru6. The latter in turn told her that he could not do an"thin! on the %atter <tsn. p.
)+, 0u!. +4, +,,*@.
This particular point not rebutted. The 9aran!a" 'aptain $ho testified did not den" that
Mrs. 2ilda 'orpu6 approached hi% for the annul%ent of the settle%ent. Be %erel" said
he for!ot $hether Mrs. 'orpu6 had approached hi% <tsn. p. +), Sept. .-, +,,*@. De
thus conclude that Mrs. 'orpu6 reall" approached the 9aran!a" 'aptain for the
annul%ent of the settle%ent. 0nnul%ent not havin! been %ade, plaintiff sta"ed put in
her house and lot.
4. Defendant1spouses 2uian! follo$ed thru the a%icable settle%ent $ith a %otion for
the e>ecution of the a%icable settle%ent, filin! the sa%e $ith the Municipal Trial 'ourt
of 8oronadal, South 'otabato. The proceedin!s FareG still pendin! before the said court,
$ith the filin! of the instant suit.
/. 0s a conse#uence of the sale, the spouses 2uian! spent P-**.** for the
preparation of the Deed of Transfer of Ri!hts, =>h. ?0?, P,,***.** as the a%ount the"
paid to Mrs. Manuela 'alleo, havin! assu%ed the re%ainin! obli!ation of the
'orpu6es to Mrs. 'alleo <=>h. ?)?@A P+**.** for the preparation of =>hibit ?)?A a total of
P45,.-. basic ta> and special education fund on the lotA P+.4.5* as the total
docu%entar" sta%p ta> on the various docu%entsA P5)5.4. for the capital !ains ta>A
P...5* as transfer ta>A a standard fee of P+4.**A certification fee of P5.**. These
e>penses particularl" the ta>es and other e>penses to$ards the transfer of the title to
the spouses 2uian!s $ere incurred for the $hole 7ot ,, 9loc& /, <7R'@ Psd1+-53*,.
Ruling of Respondent Court
Respondent 'ourt found no reversible error in the trial courtEs rulin! that an" alienation
or encu%brance b" the husband of the conu!al propet" $ithout the consent of his $ife
is null and void as provided under 0rticle +.3 of the Fa%il" 'ode. It also reected
petitionersE contention that the ?a%icable sttle%ent? ratified said sale, citing 0rticle +3*,
of the 'ode $hich e>pressl" bars ratification of the contracts specified therein,
particularl" those ?prohibited or declared void b" la$.? Bence, this petition.
9
The Issues
In their Me%orandu%, petitioners assi!n to public respondent the follo$in! errors:
1)
I
Dhether or not the assailed Deed of Transfer of Ri!hts $as validl" e>ecuted.
II
Dhether or not the 'our of 0ppeals erred in not declairin! as voidable contract under
0rt. +),* of the 'ivil 'ode the i%pu!ned Deed of Transfer of Ri!hts $hich $as validl"
ratified thru the e>ecution of the ?a%icable settle%ent? b" the contendin! parties.
III
Dhether or not the 'ourt of 0ppeals erred in not settin! aside the findin!s of the 'ourt
a quo $hich reco!ni6ed as la$ful and valid the o$nership and possession of private
respondent over the re%ainin! one half <+I.@ portion of the properl".
In a nutshell, petitioners1spouses contend that <+@ the contract of sale <Deed of Transfer
of Ri!hts@ $as %erel" voidable, and <.@ such contract $as ratified b" private
respondent $hen she entered into an a%icable sttle%ent $ith the%.
This Court's Ruling
The petition is bereft of %erit.
First Issue: Void or Voidable Contract?
Petitioners insist that the #uestioned Deed of Transfer of Ri!hts $as validl" e>ecuted
b" the parties1liti!ants in !ood faith and for valuable consideration. The absence of
private respondentEs consent %erel" rendered the Deed voidable under 0rticle +),* of
the 'ivil 'ode, $hich provides:
0rt. +),*. The follo$in! contracts are voidable or annullable, even thou!h there %a"
have been no da%a!e to the contractin! parties:
>>> >>> >>>
<.@ Those $here the consent is vitiated b" %ista&e, violence, inti%idation, undue
influence or fraud.
These contracts are bindin!, unless the" are annulled b" a proper action in court. The"
are susceptible of ratification.<n@
The error in petitionersE contention is evident. 0rticle +),*, par. ., refers to contracts
visited b" vices of consent, i.e., contracts $hich $ere entered into b" a person $hose
3
consent $as obtained and vitiated throu!h %ista&e, violence, inti%idation, undue
influence or fraud. In this instance, private respondentEs consent to the contract of sale
of their conu!al propert" $as totall" ine>istent or absent. 2ilda 'orpu6, on direct
e>a%ination, testified thus:
11
J No$, on March +, +,,*, could "ou still recall $here "ou $ereK
0 I $as still in Manila durin! that ti%e.
>>> >>> >>>
0TT;. FC=NT=S:
J Dhen did "ou co%e bac& to 8oronadal, South 'otabatoK
0 That $as on March ++, +,,*, MaEa%.
J No$, $hen "ou arrived at 8oronadal, $as there an" proble% $hich arose concernin!
the o$nership of "our residential house at 'alleo SubdivisionK
0 Dhen I arrived here in 8oronadal, there $as a proble% $hich arose re!ardin! %"
residential house and lot because it $as sold b" %" husband $ithout %" &no$led!e.
This bein! the case, said contract properl" falls $ithin the a%bit of 0rticle +.3 of the
Fa%il" 'ode, $hich $as correctl" applied b" the teo lo$er court:
0rt. +.3. The ad%inistration and eno"%ent of the conu!al partnerhip properl" shall
belon! to both spouses ointl". In case of dis!ree%ent, the husbandEs decision shall
prevail, subect recourse to the court b" the $ife for proper re%ed", $hich %ust be
availed of $ithin five "ears fro% the date of the contract i%ple%entin! such decision.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or other$ise unable to participate in the
ad%inistration of the conu!al properties, the other spouse %a" assu%e sole po$ers of
ad%inistration. These po$ers do not include the po$ers of disposition or encu%brance
$hich %ust have the authorit" of the court or the $ritten consent of the other spouse. In
the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void.
Bo$ever, the transaction shall be construed as a continuin! offer on the part of the
consentin! spouse and the third person, and %a" be perfected as a bindin! contract
upon the acceptance b" the other spouse or authori6ation b" the court before the offer
is $ithdra$n b" either or both offerors. <+-5a@ <=%phasis supplied@
'o%parin! said la$ $ith its e#uivalent provision in the 'ivil 'ode, the trial court adroitl"
e>plained the a%endator" effect of the above provision in this $ise:
12
The le!al provision is clear. The disposition or encu%brance is void. It beco%es still
clearer if $e co%pare the sa%e $ith the e#uivalent provision of the 'ivil 'ode of the
Philippines. Cnder 0rticle +-- of the 'ivil 'ode, the husband cannot !enerall" alienate
or encu%ber an" real propert" of the conu!al partnershit $ithout the $ifeEs consent.
The alienation or encu%brance if so %ade ho$ever is not null and void. It is %erel"
voidable. The offended $ife %a" brin! an action to annul the said alienation or
encu%brance. Thus the provision of 0rticle +4) of the 'ivil 'ode of the Philippines, to
$it:
0rt. +4). The $ife %a", durin! the %arria!e and $ithin ten "ears fro% the transaction
#uestioned, as& the courts for the annul%ent of an" contract of the husband entered
into $ithout her consent, $hen such consent is re#uired, or an" act or contract of the
husband $hich tends to defraud her or i%pair her interest in the conu!al partnership
propert". Should the $ife fail to e>ercise this ri!ht, she or her heirs after the dissolution
of the %arria!e, %a" de%and the value of propert" fraudulentl" alienated b" the
husband.<n@
This particular provision !ivin! the $ife ten <+*@ "ears . . . durin! FtheG %arria!e to annul
the alienation or encu%brance $as not carried over to the Fa%il" 'ode. It is thus clear
that an" alienation or encu%brance %ade after 0u!ust ), +,// $hen the Fa%il" 'ode
too& effect b" the husband of the conu!al partnership propert" $ithout the consent of
the $ife is null and void.
Further%ore, it %ust be noted that the fraud and the inti%idation referred to b"
petitioners $ere perpetrated in the e>ecution of the docu%ent e%bod"in! the a%icable
settle%ent. 2ilda 'orpu6 alle!ed durin! trial that baran!a" authorities %ade her si!n
said docu%ent throu!h %isrepresentation and
coercion.
1'
In an" event, its e>ecution does not alter the void character of the deed of
sale bet$een the husband and the petitioners1spouses, as $ill be discussed later. The
fact re%ains that such contract $as entered into $ithout the $ifeEs consent.
In su%, the nullit" of the contract of sale is pre%ised on the absence of private
respondentEs consent. To constitute a valid contract, the 'ivil 'ode re#uires the
concurrence of the follo$in! ele%ents: <+@ cause, <.@ obect, and <)@ consent,
1(
the last
ele%ent bein! indubitabl" absent in the case at bar.
econd Issue: !micable ettlement
4
Insistin! that the contract of sale $as %erel" voidable, petitioners aver that it $as dul"
ratified b" the contendin! parties throu!h the ?a%icable settle%ent? the" e>ecuted on
March +-, +,,* in 9aran!a" 'ase No. )/.
The position is not $ell ta&en. The trial and the appellate courts have resolved this
issue in favor of the private respondent. The trial court correctl" held:
15
9" the specific provision of the la$ F0rt. +),*, 'ivil 'odeG therefore, the Deed to
Transfer of Ri!hts <=>h. ?0?@ cannot be ratified, even b" an ?a%icable settle%ent?. The
participation b" so%e baran!a" authorities in the ?a%icable settle%ent? cannot
other$ise validate an invalid act. Moreover, it cannot be denied that the ?a%icable
settle%ent <=>h. ?9?@ entered into b" plaintiff 2ilda 'orpu6 and defendent spouses
2uian! is a contract. It is a direct offshoot of the Deed of Transfer of Ri!hts <=>h. ?0?@.
9" e>press provision of la$, such a contract is also void. Thus, the le!al provision, to
$it:
0rt. +3... 0contract $hich is the direct result of a previous ille!al contract, is also void
and ine>istent. <'ivil 'ode of the Philippines@.
In su%%ation therefore, both the Deed of transfer of Ri!hts <=>h. ?0?@ and the
?a%icable settle%ent? <=>h. ?)?@ are null and void.
Doctrinall" and clearl", a void contract cannot be ratified.
16
Neither can the ?a%icable settle%ent? be considered a continuin! offer that $as
accepted and perfected b" the parties, follo$in! the last sentence of 0rticle +.3. The
order of the pertinent events is clear: after the sale, petitioners filed a co%plaint for
trespassin! a!ainst private respondent, after $hich the baran!a" authorities secured
an ?a%icable settle%ent? and petitioners filed before the MT' a %otion for its
e>ecution. The settle%ent, ho$ever, does not %ention a continuin! offer to sell the
propert" or an acceptance of such a continuin! offer. Its tenor $as to the effect that
private respondent $ould vacate the propert". 9" no stretch of the i%a!ination, can the
'ourt interpret this docu%ent as the acceptance %entioned in 0rticle +.3.
DB=R=FOR=, the 'ourt hereb" D=NI=S the petition and 0FFIRMS the challen!ed
Decision and Resolution. 'osts a!ainst petitioners.
SO ORD=R=D.
5