) CONCEPCION R.
AINZA, substituted by her legal
heirs, DR. NATIVIDAD A. TULIAO, CORAZON A.
JALECO and LILIA A. OLAYON, petitioners, vs.
SPOUSES ANTONIO PADUA and EUGENIA
PADUA, respondents.
G.R. No. 165420. June 30, 2005
e.a.funa
FACTS
In April 1987, Ainza and her daughter
Eugenia, married to Antonio, orally agreed that
Ainza pay P100k in exchange for half of the portion
of Eugenia’s undivided conjugal property (a lot
located in QC). No Deed of Absolute Sale was
executed. There was physical delivery of the land
through Concepcion’s other daughter (Natividad)
acting as atty-in-fact. Concepcion thereafter allowed
Natividad and her husband occupy the purchased
portion of the land.
In 1994, Antonio caused the division of the
lot into three (two were occupied by the spouses),
necessarily displacing Natividad. He also had each
subdivision titled. Antonio requested Natividad to
vacate the premises. Antonio averred that his wife
only admitted of selling 1/3 of the property to
Concepcion for which a receipt was issued signed
by Concepcion. The RTC ruled in favor of
Concepcion. The CA reversed the RTC ruling.
Applying Article 124 of the Family Code, the Court of
Appeals ruled that since the subject property is
conjugal, the written consent of Antonio must be
obtained for the sale to be valid.
ISSUE
Whether or not the contract of sale between
Ainza and Eugenia is valid.
RULING
It is undisputed that the subject property was
conjugal and sold by Eugenia in April 1987 or prior
to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3,
1988, Article 254 of which repealed Title V, Book I of
the Civil Code provisions on the property relations
between husband and wife. However, Article 256
thereof limited its retroactive effect only to cases
where it would not prejudice or impair vested or
acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or
other laws. In the case at bar, vested rights of
Concepcion will be impaired or prejudiced by the
application of the Family Code; hence, the
provisions of the Civil Code should be applied.
In Felipe v. Heirs of Aldon, et al. the legal effect of a
sale of conjugal properties by the wife without the
consent of the husband was clarified, to wit:
In the instant case, Gimena,
the wife, sold lands belonging
to the conjugal partnership
without the consent of the
husband and the sale is not
covered by the phrase except
in cases provided by law.
The view that the contract
made by Gimena is a voidable
contract is supported by the
legal provision that contracts
entered by the husband
without the consent of the wife
when such consent is required,
are annullable at her instance
during the marriage and within
ten years from the transaction
questioned. (Art. 173, Civil
Code).
The consent of both Eugenia and Antonio is
necessary for the sale of the conjugal property to be
valid. Antonios consent cannot be presumed. Except
for the self-serving testimony of petitioner Natividad,
there is no evidence that Antonio participated or
consented to the sale of the conjugal property.
Eugenia alone is incapable of giving consent to the
contract. Therefore, in the absence of Antonios
consent, the disposition made by Eugenia is
voidable.