GUIANG SPOUSES VS.

CA AND CORPUZ (Spouses Antonio)

FACTS: Spouses Judie and Gilda Corpuz, as vendee, bought a lot located in South
Cotabato through a conditional deed of sale. Judie sold portion of their lot,
without the consent of his wife, to spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang. The
latter have, since then, occupied the said portion and built their house thereon.
They are thus adjoining neighbours of Spouses Corpuz. Gilda, while she was in
Manila seeking employment, raised the objection for the sale. Upon her return to
Cotabato, respondent gathered her children and went back to the subject
property. Petitioners then filed a complaint for trespassing. Later, there was an
amicable settlement between the parties. Feeling that she had the shorter end of
the bargain, respondent filed an Amended Complaint against her husband and
petitioners. 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: WON contract without the consent of wife is void.

HELD. YES. Art 124 of the Family Code rules that 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.
Respondents consent to the contract of sale of their conjugal property was
totally inexistent or absent. The nullity of the contract of sale is premised on the
absence of private respondents consent. To constitute a valid contract, the Civil
Code requires the concurrence of the following elements: cause, object and
consent. The last element being indubitably absent in the case at bar. A void
contract cannot be ratified.

Neither can the amicable settlement be considered a continuing offer that was
accepted and perfected by the parties, following the last sentence of Article 124.
The order of the pertinent events is clear: after the sale, petitioners filed a
complaint for trespassing against private respondent, after which the barangay
authorities secured and amicable settlement and petitioners filed before the MTC
a motion for execution. The settlement, however, does not mention a continuing
offer to sell the property or an acceptance of such a continuing offer. Its tenor
was to the effect that private respondent would vacate the property. By no
stretch of the imagination, can the Court interpret this document as the
acceptance mentioned in Article 124.