002Fuentesvs.

Roca
[G.R.No.178902;April21,2010]
TOPIC:Whenlawtakeseffect
PONENTE:ABAD,J.

AUTHOR:Faye
NOTES:Thiscaseisaboutahusbandssaleofconjugalreal
property,employingachallengedaffidavitofconsentfroman
estrangedwife.Thebuyersclaimvalidconsent,lossofrightto
declarenullityofsale,andprescription.

FACTS:(chronologicalorder)
1.
2.
3.

SabinaTarrozaownedalotinCanelar,ZamboangaCity.OnOctober11,1982shesoldittoherson,TarcianoT.Roca(Tarciano)
underadeedofabsolutesale.
Sixyearslaterin1988,TarcianoofferedtosellthelottopetitionersManuelandLeticiaFuentes(theFuentesspouses).
TarcianoandtheFuentesspouseslatersignedanagreementtosellpreparedbyAtty.Plagataprepared.

4.

TheagreementrequiredtheFuentesspousestopayTarcianoadownpaymentofP60,000.00;and,withinsixmonths,Tarciano
wastoclearthelotofstructuresandoccupantsandsecuretheconsentofhisestrangedwife,RosarioGabrielRoca(Rosario),to
thesale.UponTarcianoscompliancewiththeseconditions,theFuentesspousesweretotakepossessionofthelotandpayhiman
additionalP140,000.00orP160,000.00,dependingonwhetherornothesucceededindemolishingthehousestandingonit.If
Tarcianowasunabletocomplywiththeseconditions,theFuentesspouseswouldbecomeownersofthelotwithoutanyfurther
formalityandpayment.
5. Accordingtothelawyer,hewenttoseeRosarioinoneofhistripstoManilaandhadhersignanaffidavitofconsent. Assoonas
Tarcianomettheotherconditions,Atty.PlagatanotarizedRosariosaffidavit.Tarcianothenexecutedadeedofabsolutesale in
favoroftheFuentesspouses.TheythenpaidhimtheadditionalP140,000.00mentionedintheiragreement.Anewtitlewasissued
inthenameofthespouseswhoimmediatelyconstructedabuildingonthelot.
6. ThedeedofsalewasexecutedJanuary11,1989.
7. OnJanuary28,1990,Tarcianopassedaway,followedbyhiswifeRosariowhodiedninemonthsafterwards.
8. Eightyearslaterin1997,thechildrenofTarcianoandRosario,collectively,theRocas,filedanactionforannulmentofsaleand
reconveyanceofthelandagainsttheFuentesspousesbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofZamboangaCity.
9. TheRocasclaimedthatthesaletothespouseswasvoidsinceTarcianoswife,Rosario,didnotgiveherconsenttoit.Her
signatureontheaffidavitofconsenthadbeenforged.Theythusprayedthatthepropertybereconveyedtothemupon
reimbursementofthepricethattheFuentesspousespaidTarciano.
10. TheFuentesspousesclaimthattheactionhasprescribedsinceanactiontoannulasaleonthegroundoffraudis4yearsfrom
discovery.
11. TheRTCrenderedjudgment,dismissingthecase.Itruledthattheactionhadalreadyprescribedsincethegroundcitedbythe
Rocasforannullingthesale,forgeryorfraud,alreadyprescribedunderArticle1391oftheCivilCodefouryearsafterits
discovery.Inthiscase,theRocasmaybedeemedtohavenoticeofthefraudfromthedatethedeedofsalewasregisteredwiththe
RegistryofDeedsandthenewtitlewasissued.Here,theRocasfiledtheiractionin1997,almostnineyearsafterthetitlewas
issuedtotheFuentesspousesonJanuary18,1989.
12. Onappeal,theCourtofAppeals(CA)reversedtheRTCdecision.SinceTarcianoandRosarioweremarriedin1950,theCA
concludedthattheirpropertyrelationsweregovernedbytheCivilCodeunderwhichanactionforannulmentofsaleontheground
oflackofspousalconsentmaybebroughtbythewifeduringthemarriagewithin10yearsfromthetransaction.Consequently,the
actionthattheRocas,herheirs,broughtin1997fellwithin10yearsoftheJanuary11,1989sale.
ISSUE(S):
1.WhetherornotRosariossignatureonthedocumentofconsenttoherhusbandTarcianossaleoftheirconjugallandtotheFuentes
spouseswasforged.
2.WhetherornottheRocasactionforthedeclarationofnullityofthEsaletothespousesalreadyprescribed.
3.WhetherornotonlyRosario,thewifewhoseconsentwasnothad,couldbringtheactiontoannulthatsale.
HELD:
1. YES.
2. NO.
3. NO.
RATIO:
1.YES.First.ThekeyissueinthiscaseiswhetherornotRosariossignatureonthedocumentofconsenthadbeenforged.For,ifthe
signatureweregenuine,thefactthatshegaveherconsenttoherhusbandssaleoftheconjugallandwouldrendertheotherissues

merelyacademic.
TheCAfoundthatRosariossignaturehadbeenforged.TheCAobservedamarkeddifferencebetweenhersignatureontheaffidavit
ofconsent15andherspecimensignatures.16TheCAgavenoweighttoAtty.PlagatastestimonythathesawRosariosignthedocument
inManilaonSeptember15,1988sincethisclashedwithhisdeclarationinthejuratthatRosariosignedtheaffidavitinZamboanga
CityonJanuary11,1989.
TheCourtagreeswiththeCAsobservationthatRosariossignaturestrokesontheaffidavitappearsheavy,deliberate,andforced.
Whileadefectivenotarizationwillmerelystripthedocumentofitspubliccharacterandreduceittoaprivateinstrument,thatfalsified
jurat,takentogetherwiththemarksofforgeryinthesignature,doomssuchdocumentasproofofRosariosconsenttothesaleofthe
land.ThattheFuentesspouseshonestlyreliedonthenotarizedaffidavitasproofofRosariosconsentdoesnotmatter.Thesaleisstill
voidwithoutanauthenticconsent.

2.NO.ContrarytotherulingoftheCourtofAppeals,thelawthatappliestothiscaseistheFamilyCode,nottheCivilCode.
AlthoughTarcianoandRosariogotmarriedin1950,Tarcianosoldtheconjugalpropertywithouttheconsentofhiswifeon
January11,1989,afewmonthsaftertheFamilyCodetookeffectonAugust3,1988.

IncontrasttoArticle173oftheCivilCodewhichgivesthewiferighttohavethesaleannulledduringthemarriagewithinten
yearsfromthedateofthesale,Article124oftheFamilyCodedoesnotprovideaperiodwithinwhichthewifewhogaveno
consentmayassailherhusbandssaleoftherealproperty.Itsimplyprovidesthatwithouttheotherspouseswrittenconsent
oracourtorderallowingthesale,thesamewouldbevoid.Thepassageoftimedidnoterodetherighttobringsuchanaction.

TheFamilyCodetookeffectonAugust3,1988.ItsChapter4onConjugalPartnershipofGainsexpresslysupersededTitleVI,
BookIoftheCivilCodeonPropertyRelationsBetweenHusbandandWife.Further,theFamilyCodeprovisionswerealso
madetoapplytoalreadyexistingconjugalpartnershipswithoutprejudicetovestedrights.
Art.105.xxxTheprovisionsofthisChaptershallalsoapplytoconjugalpartnershipsofgainsalreadyestablishedbetween
spousesbeforetheeffectivityofthisCode,withoutprejudicetovestedrightsalreadyacquiredinaccordancewiththeCivil
Codeorotherlaws,asprovidedinArticle256.(n)
UndertheprovisionsoftheCivilCodegoverningcontracts,avoidorinexistentcontracthasnoforceandeffectfromthevery
beginning.Andthisruleappliestocontractsthataredeclaredvoidbypositiveprovisionoflaw, 20asinthecaseofasaleof
conjugalpropertywithouttheotherspouseswrittenconsent.Avoidcontractisequivalenttonothingandisabsolutely
wantingincivileffects.Itcannotbevalidatedeitherbyratificationorprescription.
Here,theRocasfiledanactionagainsttheFuentesspousesin1997forannulmentofsaleandreconveyanceoftherealproperty
thatTarcianosoldwithouttheirmothers(hiswifes)writtenconsent.Thepassageoftimedidnoterodetherighttobringsuch
anaction.
EvenassumingthatitistheCivilCodethatappliestothetransactionastheCAheld,Article173providesthatthewifemay
bringanactionforannulmentofsaleonthegroundoflackofspousalconsentduringthemarriagewithin10yearsfromthe
transaction.Consequently,theactionthattheRocas,herheirs,broughtin1997fellwithin10yearsoftheJanuary11,1989
sale.Itdidnotyetprescribe.
3.NO.ItisarguedbytheSpousesFuentesthatitisonlythespouse,Rosario,whocanfilesuchacasetoassailthevalidityofthesale
butgiventhatRosariowasalreadydeadnoonecouldbringtheactionanymore.TheSCruledthatsuchpositioniswrongsinceas
statedabove,thatsalewasvoidfromthebeginning.Consequently,thelandremainedthepropertyofTarcianoandRosariodespitethat
sale.Whenthetwodied,theypassedontheownershipofthepropertytotheirheirs,namely,theRocas.Aslawfulowners,theRocas
hadtheright,underArticle429oftheCivilCode,toexcludeanypersonfromitsenjoymentanddisposal.
CASELAW/DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRINGOPINION(S):