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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Guiang v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Daryl Yu
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision that a deed transferring rights to property and an amicable settlement were null and void. The husband sold half the conjugal property without his wife's consent, which is required under the Family Code. A void contract cannot be ratified, so the subsequent settlement did not validate the illegal sale. As the wife did not consent, she remained the rightful owner of the remaining half of the property.

    Copyright:

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

    Guiang v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Daryl Yu
    15 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision that a deed transferring rights to property and an amicable settlement were null and void. The husband sold half the conjugal property without his wife's consent, which is required under the Family Code. A void contract cannot be ratified, so the subsequent settlement did not validate the illegal sale. As the wife did not consent, she remained the rightful owner of the remaining half of the property.

    Original Description:

    Guiang v. CA digest

    Original Title

    365. Guiang v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision that a deed transferring rights to property and an amicable settlement were null and void. The husband sold half the conjugal property without his wife's consent, which is required under the Family Code. A void contract cannot be ratified, so the subsequent settlement did not validate the illegal sale. As the wife did not consent, she remained the rightful owner of the remaining half of the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views2 pages

    Guiang v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Daryl Yu
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision that a deed transferring rights to property and an amicable settlement were null and void. The husband sold half the conjugal property without his wife's consent, which is required under the Family Code. A void contract cannot be ratified, so the subsequent settlement did not validate the illegal sale. As the wife did not consent, she remained the rightful owner of the remaining half of the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATION ● She filed a complaint against her husband and spouses Guiang and

    the RTC held that the Deed of Transfer of Rights and the amicable
    settlement are null and void. Gilda is the rightful owner of the
    Guiang v. Court of Appeals remaining one-half portion of the lot. This was affirmed by the CA.
    G.R. NO. 125172 | Disposition and encumbrance

    DOCTRINE/LESSON OF THE CASE ISSUES


    ● The sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the 1. W/N the contract of sale (Deed of Transfer of Rights) is merely voidable.
    husband and the wife. The absence of the consent of one renders the 2. W/N the contract of sale was ratified when Gilda Corpuz entered into an
    sale null and void, while the vitiation thereof makes it merely amicable settlement with Guiang.
    voidable. Only in the latter case can ratification cure the defect. RULING
    NO. The contract is void and therefore cannot be ratified.
    ● A void contract cannot be ratified.
    Guiangs’ defense that the contract was merely voidable cannot hold due to
    FACTS an erroneous application of Art. 1390 of the Civil Code, which enumerates
    ● PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of voidable contracts.
    Appeals.
    ● Spouses Gilda (private RESP) and Judie Corpuz bought a parcel of land Article 1390, par. 2, refers to contracts visited by vices of consent, i.e.,
    Koranodal, South Cotabato, where they established their conjugal contracts which were entered into by a person whose consent was obtained
    dwelling. A few years later, they sold one-half of said land to and vitiated through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or
    petitioners, spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang. fraud. Gilda’s consent to the contract of sale of their conjugal property was
    ● Gilda went to Manila to look for work. After her departure, Judie totally inexistent or absent.
    rarely went home. The contract falls properly within Art. 124 of the Family Code.
    ● Harriet Corpuz informed her mother that her father was going to sell
    their portion of the lot, including the house, to the Guiangs. Gilda “In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable
    replied that she was objecting to the sale but Harriet only informed to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the
    Luzviminda about it. other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These
    ● On March 1, 1990, in the absence of his wife, Judie sold their one-half powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority
    portion, and the house, for P30,000, and executed a Deed of Transfer of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the
    of Rights in favor of spouses Guiang. absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or
    ● When Gilda returned, her husband was nowhere to be found. encumbrance shall be void.”
    ● Luzviminda filed a complaint before the Barangay authorities against
    Gilda and her children, who continued to stay in the house. The The fraud and the intimidation referred to by Guiang were perpetrated in
    parties eventually signed an amicable settlement, wherein Gilda and the execution of the amicable settlement. (Gilda testified that brgy.
    her children agreed to leave on or before April 7, 1990. authorities made her sign said document through misrepresentation and
    ● Later on, Gilda approached the Barangay Captain questioning her coercion)
    signature and requesting for the annulment of the settlement, but it
    was unheeded.

    G01-2023 1
    Thus the amicable settlement couldn’t actually ratify anything. Art 1422
    provides that a contract directly resulting from a previous illegal contract is
    void. Doctrinally, Void contracts can’t be ratified.

    The Civil Code supports the decision upon comparison with the Family Code.
    Art.166, CC provides that the contract above would be only voidable, but
    Art 173, CC allows the wife to annul it. On the other hand, the fraud and
    intimidation that could vitiate consent was present in the amicable
    settlement agreement.

    DISPOSITIVE POSITION
    WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the
    challenged Decision and Resolution. Costs against petitioners.

    SO ORDERED.

    G01-2023 2

    You might also like