Spouses ANTONIO and LUZVIMINDA GUIANG, petitioners, vs .

COURT
OF APPEALS and GILDA CORPUZ, respondents.
Facts:
Spouse Gilda ( private respondent) and Judie Corpuz are legally married. During their marriage
they bought a 421 sq. meter lot located at Brgy. Gen. Paulino Santos, Koronadal South Cotobato
which became as their conjugal dwelling. They sold one half of the lot to spouses Antonio and
Luzviminda Guiang (petitioners).
Sometime in March 1990, Gilda went to Manila to find a job in the Middle-East. Being a victim
of an illegal recruitment, stayed for some time in manila. In his absence, her husband planned to sell
the remaining half of their lot to the Guiang spouses without her consent. Learning of her father’s
plans, Harriet, one of her daughters wrote a letter to Gilda informing the plans of their father. Gilda
went home to Cotabato and there she discovered that some of her children are not living in their
conjugal dwelling and her husband was nowhere to be found. She then decided to gather her children
and stay in their conjugal dwelling where she realized that was already sold by her husband to
spouses Guiang. The latter filed a case of trespassing to her before the Barangay Authorities. Then
spouses Guiang executed an “amicable settlement” to ratify the deed of transfer of rights regading
the property
Gilda filed a case in the RTC declaring the deed of transfer of rights involving the conjugal
property of her and her husband null and void for it was executed without her consent.
RTC rendered a decision in favor of Gilda declaring the deed of rights and the execution of amicable
settlement null and void and of no effect.
Respondents appealed in the CA. CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. Hence the petition.
Issues:
1. Whether the assailed deed of transfer of rights was a void or a voidable contract
2. WON the execution of the ’amicable settlement” can validly rectify the defect in the assailed Deed
of Transfer of Rights

Ruling

The Guiang spouses allege that absence of Gilda’s consent merely rendered the Deed voidable
under Article 1390 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have
been no damage to the contracting parties…

The error in petitioners’ contention is evident. Article 1390, par. 2, refers to contracts visited by
vices of consent, i.e., contracts which were entered into by a person whose consent was obtained and
vitiated through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. In this instance, private
respondent’s consent to the contract of sale of their conjugal property was totally inexistent or
absent. The said contract properly falls within the ambit of Article 124 of the Family Code, which was
correctly applied by the lower court.

With regard to the executed amicable settlement:

By the specific provision of the law [Art. 1390, Civil Code] therefore, the Deed to Transfer of
Rights cannot be ratified, even by an “amicable settlement”. It cannot be denied that the “amicable
settlement” entered into by plaintiff Gilda spouses Guiang is a contract. It is a direct offshoot of the
Deed of Transfer of Rights. By express provision of law, such a contract is also void:

Art. 1422. A contract which is the direct result of a previous illegal contract, is also void and
inexistent. (Civil Code of the Philippines).

In summation therefore, both the Deed of transfer of Rights and the “amicable settlement” are
null and void.