You are on page 1of 3

Abalos vs Macatangay, Jr.

Posted by kaye lee on 10:00 PM


G.R. No. 155043 September 30 2004

FACTS:
Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos are the registered owners of a parcel of
land with improvements. Arturo made a Receipt and Memorandum of
Agreement in favor of Macatangay, binding himself to sell to latter the
subject property and not to offer the same to any other party within 30 days
from date. Full payment would also be effected as soon as possession of the
property shall have been turned over to Macatangay. Macatangay gave an
earnest money amounting to P5,000.00 to be deducted from the purchase
price of P1,300,000.00 in favor of the spouses.

Subsequently, Arturo and Esther had a marital squabble brewing at that time
and Macatangay, to protect his interest, made an annotation in the title of
the property. He then sent a letter informing them of his readiness to pay the
full amount of the purchase price. Esther, through her SPA, executed in favor
of Macatangay, a Contract to sell the property to the extent of her conjugal
interest for the sum of P650,000 less the sum already received by her and
Arturo. She agreed to surrender the property to Macatangay within 20 days
along with the deed of absolute sale upon full payment, while he promised to
pay the balance of the purchase price for P1, 290,000.00 after being placed
in possession of the property. Macatangay informed them that he was ready
to pay the amount in full. The couple failed to deliver the property so he sued
the spouses.

RTC dismissed the complaint, because the SPA could not have authorized
Arturo to sell the property to Macatangay as it was falsified. CA reversed the
decision, ruling the SPA in favor of Arturo, assuming it was void, cannot affect
the transaction between Esther and Macatangay. On the other hand, the CA
considered the RMOA executed by Arturo valid to effect the sale of his
conjugal share in the property.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale of property is valid.

RULING:

No. Arturo and Esther appear to have been married before the effectivity of
the Family Code. There being no indication that they have adopted a
different property regime, their property relations would automatically be
governed by the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. The subject land
which had been admittedly acquired during the marriage of the spouses
forms part of their conjugal partnership.

Under the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the conjugal
partnership. This right is clearly granted to him by law. More, the husband is
the sole administrator. The wife is not entitled as of right to joint
administration.

The husband, even if he is statutorily designated as administrator of the


conjugal partnership, cannot validly alienate or encumber any real property
of the conjugal partnership without the wifes consent. Similarly, the wife
cannot dispose of any property belonging to the conjugal partnership without
the conformity of the husband. The law is explicit that the wife cannot bind
the conjugal partnership without the husbands consent, except in cases
provided by law.

More significantly, it has been held that prior to the liquidation of the
conjugal partnership, the interest of each spouse in the conjugal assets is
inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an
equitable estate, and does not ripen into title until it appears that there are
assets in the community as a result of the liquidation and settlement. The
interest of each spouse is limited to the net remainder or remanente
liquido (haber ganancial) resulting from the liquidation of the affairs of the
partnership after its dissolution. Thus, the right of the husband or wife to
one-half of the conjugal assets does not vest until the dissolution and
liquidation of the conjugal partnership, or after dissolution of the marriage,

when it is finally determined that, after settlement of conjugal obligations,


there are net assets left which can be divided between the spouses or their
respective heirs.

The Family Code has introduced some changes particularly on the aspect of
the administration of the conjugal partnership. The new law provides that the
administration of the conjugal partnership is now a joint undertaking of the
husband and the wife. In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or
otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal
partnership, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration.
However, the power of administration does not include the power to dispose
or encumber property belonging to the conjugal partnership. In all instances,
the present law specifically requires the written consent of the other spouse,
or authority of the court for the disposition or encumbrance of conjugal
partnership property without which, the disposition or encumbrance shall be
void.

Inescapably, herein Arturos action for specific performance must fail. Even
on the supposition that the parties only disposed of their respective shares in
the property, the sale, assuming that it exists, is still void for as previously
stated, the right of the husband or the wife to one-half of the conjugal assets
does not vest until the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Nemo dat qui
non habet. No one can give what he has not.

You might also like