Guiang vs. CA
Guiang vs. CA
Guiang vs. CA
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Guiang vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R.No.125172.June26,1998.
373
VOL.291,JUNE26,1998
373
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Public Attorneys Officeforpetitioners.
Arnold D. Cruzforprivaterespondent.
374
374
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Guiang vs. Court of Appeals
PANGANIBAN,J.:
Thesaleofaconjugalpropertyrequirestheconsentofboth
thehusbandandthewife.Theabsenceoftheconsentofone
renders the sale null and void, while the vitiation thereof
makes it merely voidable. Only in the latter case can
ratificationcurethedefect.
The Case
TheseweretheprinciplesthatguidedtheCourtindeciding
1
this petition for review of
the
Decision
dated January 30,
2
1996andtheResolution datedMay28,1996,promulgated
bytheCourtofAppealsinCAGRCVNo.41758,affirming
theDecisionofthelowercourtanddenyingreconsideration,
respectively.
OnMay28,1990,PrivateRespondentGildaCorpuzfiled
3
anAmendedComplaint againstherhusbandJudieCorpuz
and PetitionersSpouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang.
ThesaidComplaintsoughtthedeclarationofacertaindeed
of sale, which involved the conjugal property of private
respondent and her husband, null and void. The case was
raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Koronadal, South
Cotabato,Branch25.Induecourse,thetrialcourtrendered
4
5
aDecision datedSeptember9,1992,disposingasfollows:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered for the plaintiff and
againstthedefendants,
________________
1 Penned by J. Lourdes K. TayaoJaguros and concurred in by JJ.
formerNinthDivision;rollo,p.58.
3DocketedasCivilCaseNo.284;rollo,pp.2227.
4PennedbyJudgeFranciscoS.Ampig,Jr.
5RTCDecision,p.12;rollo,p.42.
375
VOL.291,JUNE26,1998
375
Reconsiderationwassimilarlydeniedbythesamecourtin
7
itsassailedResolution:
Findingthattheissuesraisedindefendantsappellantsmotionfor
reconsiderationofOurdecisioninthiscaseofJanuary30,1996,to
beamererehashofthesameissueswhichWehavealreadypassed
upon in the said decision, and there [being] no cogent reason to
disturb the same, this Court RESOLVES to DENY the instant
motionforreconsiderationforlackofmerit.
________________
6CADecision,p.10;rollo,p.56.
7Rollo,p.58.
376
376
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Guiang vs. Court of Appeals
The Facts
The facts of this case are simple. Over the objection of
private respondent and while she was in Manila seeking
employment, her husband sold to the petitionersspouses
one half of their conjugal property, consisting of their
residenceandthelotonwhichitstood.Thecircumstancesof
thissalearesetforthintheDecisionofRespondentCourt,
8
whichquotedfromtheDecisionofthetrialcourtasfollows:
1. Plaintiff Gilda Corpuz and defendant Judie Corpuz are legally
married spouses. They were married on December 24, 1968 in
BacolodCity,beforeajudge.Thisisadmittedbydefendantsspouses
AntonioandLuzvimindaGuiangintheiranswer,andalsoadmitted
by defendant Judie Corpuz when he testified in court (tsn. p. 3,
June 9, 1992), although the latter says that they were married in
1967.Thecouplehavethreechildren,namely:Junie18yearsold,
Harriet17yearsofage,andJodieorJoji,theyoungest,whowas
15yearsofageinAugust,1990whenhermothertestifiedincourt.
Sometime on February 14, 1983, the couple Gilda and Judie
Corpuz, with plaintiffwife Gilda Corpuz as vendee, bought a 421
sq. meter lot located in Barangay Gen. Paulino Santos (Bo. 1),
Koronadal,SouthCotabato,andparticularlyknownasLot9,Block
8, (LRC) Psd165409 from Manuel Callejo who signed as vendor
through a conditional deed of sale for a total consideration of
P14,735.00. The consideration was payable in installment, with
right of cancellation in favor of vendor should vendee fail to pay
threesuccessiveinstallments(Exh.2,tsn,p.6,February14,1990).
2. Sometime on April 22, 1988, the couple Gilda and Judie
CorpuzsoldonehalfportionoftheirLotNo.9,Block8,(LRC)Psd
165409tothedefendantsspousesAntonioandLuzvimindaGuiang.
Thelatterhavesincethenoccupiedtheonehalfportion[and]built
their house thereon (tsn, p. 4, May 22, 1992). They are thus
adjoiningneighborsoftheCorpuzes.
3.PlaintiffGildaCorpuzleftforManilasometimeinJune1989.
She was trying to look for work abroad, in [the] Middle East.
Unfortunately,shebecameavictimofanunscrupulousillegalre
________________
8CADecision,pp.26;rollo,pp.4852.
377
VOL.291,JUNE26,1998
377
378
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Guiang vs. Court of Appeals
themassofevidencethatthecorrectlotisLot8,Block9,(LRC)Psd
165409, the very lot earlier sold to the couple Gilda and Judie
Corpuz.
5. SometimeonMarch11,1990,plaintiffreturnedhome.She
found her children staying with other households. Only
Junie was staying in their house. Harriet and Joji were
with Mr. Panes. Gilda gathered her children together and
stayed at their house. Her husband was nowhere to be
found. She was informed by her children that their father
hadawifealready.
6. For staying in their house sold by her husband, plaintiff
was complained against by defendant Luzviminda Guiang
and her husband Antonio Guiang before the Barangay
authorities of Barangay General Paulino Santos (Bo. 1),
Koronadal,SouthCotabato,fortrespassing(tsn.p.34,Aug.
17, 1990). The case was docketed by the barangay
authorities as Barangay Case No. 38 for trespassing. On
March 16, 1990, the parties thereat signed a document
known as amicable settlement. In full, the settlement
providesfor,towit:
That respondent, Mrs. Gilda Corpuz and her three children, namely:
Junie,HarrietandJudietoleavevoluntarilythehouseofMr.andMrs.
AntonioGuiang,wheretheyarepresentlyboardingwithoutanycharge,
onorbeforeApril7,1990.
FAILNOTUNDERTHEPENALTYOFTHELAW.
Believing that she had received the shorter end of the bargain,
plaintiffwenttotheBarangayCaptainofBarangayPaulinoSantos
to question her signature on the amicable settlement. She was
referredhowevertotheOfficerInChargeatthetime,acertainMr.
delaCruz.Thelatterinturntoldherthathecouldnotdoanything
onthematter(tsn.p.31,Aug.17,1990).
This particular point was not rebutted. The Barangay Captain
who testified did not deny that Mrs. Gilda Corpuz approached him
for the annulment of the settlement. He merely said he forgot
whether Mrs. Corpuz had approached him (tsn. p. 13, Sept. 26,
1990). We thus conclude that Mrs. Corpuz really approached the
BarangayCaptainfortheannulmentofthesettlement.Annulment
nothavingbeenmade,plaintiffstayedputinherhouseandlot.
7. Defendantspouses Guiang followed thru the amicable
settlement with a motion for the execution of the amicable
settlement, filing the same with the Municipal Trial Court of
Koronadal, South Cotabato. The proceedings [are] still pending
beforethesaidcourt,withthefilingoftheinstantsuit.
379
VOL.291,JUNE26,1998
379
spousesGuiangswereincurredforthewholeLot9,Block8,(LRC)
Psd165409.
privaterespondentsMemorandumonNovember17,1997.
10Rollo,pp.9192.
380
380
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Guiang vs. Court of Appeals
II
Thepetitionisbereftofmerit.
First Issue: Void or Voidable Contract?
Petitioners insist that the questioned Deed of Transfer of
Rightswasvalidlyexecutedbythepartieslitigantsingood
faithandforvaluableconsideration.Theabsenceofprivate
respondents consent merely rendered the Deed voidable
underArticle1390oftheCivilCode,whichprovides:
ART. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable,
even though there may have been no damage to the contracting
parties:
xxxxxxxxx
(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence,
intimidation,undueinfluenceorfraud.
These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a
properactionincourt.Theyaresusceptibleofratification.(n)
381
VOL.291,JUNE26,1998
381
IwasstillinManiladuringthattime.
xxxxxxxxx
ATTY.FUENTES:
Q
WhendidyoucomebacktoKoronadal,SouthCotabato?
ThatwasonMarch11,1990,Maam.
Now,whenyouarrivedatKoronadal,wasthereany
problemwhicharoseconcerningtheownershipofyour
residentialhouseatCallejoSubdivision?
WhenIarrivedhereinKoronadal,therewasaproblem
whicharoseregardingmyresidentialhouseandlot
becauseitwassoldbymyhusbandwithoutmy
knowledge.
Thisbeingthecase,saidcontractproperlyfallswithinthe
ambitofArticle124oftheFamilyCode,whichwascorrectly
appliedbythetwolowercourts:
ART. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal
partnershippropertyshallbelongtobothspousesjointly.Incaseof
disagreement, the husbands decision shall prevail, subject to
recoursetothecourtbythewifeforproperremedy,whichmustbe
availed of within five years from the date of the contract
implementingsuchdecision.
Intheeventthatonespouseisincapacitatedorotherwiseunable
to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the
other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These
powersdonotincludethepowersofdispositionorencumbrance
________________
11TSN,August17,1990,pp.1617.
382
382
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Guiang vs. Court of Appeals
whichmusthavetheauthorityofthecourtorthewrittenconsentof
the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the
disposition or encumbrance shall be void.However,thetransaction
shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the
consentingspouseandthethirdperson,andmaybeperfectedasa
binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or
authorizationbythecourtbeforetheofferiswithdrawnbyeitheror
bothofferors.(165a)(Italicssupplied)
383
VOL.291,JUNE26,1998
383
384
384
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Guiang vs. Court of Appeals
sionoflaw,suchacontractisalsovoid.Thus,thelegalprovision,to
wit:
Art. 1422. A contract which is the direct result of a previous illegal
contract,isalsovoidandinexistent.(CivilCodeofthePhilippines).
Doctrinallyandclearly,avoidcontractcannotberatified.
Neither can the amicable settlement be considered a
continuing offer that was accepted and perfected by the
parties,followingthelastsentenceofArticle124.Theorder
of the pertinent events is clear: after the sale, petitioners
filedacomplaintfortrespassingagainstprivaterespondent,
afterwhichthebarangayauthoritiessecuredanamicable
settlement and petitioners filed before the MTC a motion
foritsexecution.Thesettlement,however,doesnotmention
a continuing offer to sell the property or an acceptance of
such a continuing offer. Its tenor was to the effect that
privaterespondentwouldvacatetheproperty.Bynostretch
oftheimagination,cantheCourtinterpretthisdocumentas
theacceptancementionedinArticle124.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DENIES the petition
and AFFIRMS the challenged Decision and Resolution.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug and
Quisumbing, JJ.,concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.The presumption is that all property of the
marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership, unless it is
proved
________________
16 Art. 1409, Civil Code; and Tongoy
99,119121,June28,1983,perMakasiar,J.
385
VOL.291,JUNE26,1998
385