Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    216 Domingo V Molina

    Uploaded by

    Miguel de Guzman
    1. Anastacio Domingo sold his interest in a property he jointly owned with his late wife Flora to the Molina spouses to repay debts, without Flora's consent since she had died 10 years prior. 2. One of Anastacio and Flora's children filed a complaint to annul the title transfer, arguing the sale required Flora's consent as the property was still part of the conjugal estate. 3. The court ruled that while Anastacio could freely sell his undivided half interest, the Molina spouses became co-owners with Flora's heirs and trustees of any portion belonging to the heirs after partitioning. The heirs' recourse was to pursue a partition action, not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    216 Domingo V Molina

    Uploaded by

    Miguel de Guzman
    25 views1 page
    1. Anastacio Domingo sold his interest in a property he jointly owned with his late wife Flora to the Molina spouses to repay debts, without Flora's consent since she had died 10 years prior. 2. One of Anastacio and Flora's children filed a complaint to annul the title transfer, arguing the sale required Flora's consent as the property was still part of the conjugal estate. 3. The court ruled that while Anastacio could freely sell his undivided half interest, the Molina spouses became co-owners with Flora's heirs and trustees of any portion belonging to the heirs after partitioning. The heirs' recourse was to pursue a partition action, not

    Original Title

    216 Domingo v Molina.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Anastacio Domingo sold his interest in a property he jointly owned with his late wife Flora to the Molina spouses to repay debts, without Flora's consent since she had died 10 years prior. 2. One of Anastacio and Flora's children filed a complaint to annul the title transfer, arguing the sale required Flora's consent as the property was still part of the conjugal estate. 3. The court ruled that while Anastacio could freely sell his undivided half interest, the Molina spouses became co-owners with Flora's heirs and trustees of any portion belonging to the heirs after partitioning. The heirs' recourse was to pursue a partition action, not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views1 page

    216 Domingo V Molina

    Uploaded by

    Miguel de Guzman
    1. Anastacio Domingo sold his interest in a property he jointly owned with his late wife Flora to the Molina spouses to repay debts, without Flora's consent since she had died 10 years prior. 2. One of Anastacio and Flora's children filed a complaint to annul the title transfer, arguing the sale required Flora's consent as the property was still part of the conjugal estate. 3. The court ruled that while Anastacio could freely sell his undivided half interest, the Molina spouses became co-owners with Flora's heirs and trustees of any portion belonging to the heirs after partitioning. The heirs' recourse was to pursue a partition action, not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    216 Domingo v.

    Molina

    1. Spouses Domingo bought a property in Camiling,


    Tarlac.
    2. Anastacio has been borrowing money from the
    respondent spouses Molina. Ten years after the
    death of Flora (wife of Anastacio). Anastacio sold his
    interest over the land to the spouses Molina to
    answer for his debts.
    3. One of the children of Anastacio and Flora filed a
    Complaint for Annulment of Title and recovery
    against the spouses Molina. He alleges that
    Anastacio could not have validly sold the interest
    over the subject property without Flora’s consent,
    as she was already dead at the time of the sale.

    ISSUES: Whether or not the sale of a conjugal property


    to the spouses Molina without Flora’s consent is valid
    and legal

     Anastacio and Flora Domingo married before the


    Family Code’s effectivityand so their property
    relation is a conjugal partnership. It dissolved when
    Flora died in 1968.
     The heirs of Flora were governed by an implied co-
    ownership among the conjugal properties pending
    liquidation and partition. This will also include
    Anastacio with respect to Flora’s share of the
    conjugal partnership. Anastacio being a co-owner,
    cannot claim title to any specific portion of the
    conjugal properties without having done an actual
    partition first, either by agreement or by judicial
    decree. On the other hand, Anastacio owns one-half
    of the original conjugal partnership properties as his
    share, but this is an undivided interest. As a
    consequence, he had the right to freely sell and
    dispose his undivided interest in the subject
    property.
     The spouses Molina became co-owners of the
    subject property to the extent of Anastacio’s
    interest. Anastactio’s sale to the spouses Molina
    without the consent of the other co-owners was not
    totally void, for his rights or a portion thereof were
    thereby effectively transferred. The spouses Molina
    would be a trustee for the benefit of the co-heirs of
    Anastacio in respect of any portion that might
    belong to the co-heirs after liquidation and
    partition. Melecio’s recourse as a co-owner of the
    conjugal properties is an action for PARTITION
    under Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court

    You might also like