Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

101 Phil 288:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9727. April 29, 1957.]

MARGARITA TABUNAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN and CONSORCIA MARIGMEN, Defendants-Appellees.

Domingo B. Maddumba for Appellant.

Conrado C. Manongdo and Gonzalo U. Garcia for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. CONJUGAL PROPERTY; SALE OF; RIGHT OF HUSBAND TO ADMINISTER AND DISPOSE OF PROPERTY ABSOLUTE UNDER THE CIVIL CODE; RULE UNDER THE NEW CIVIL CODE. — To administer and dispose of the conjugal property of the spouses is not limited to the cases in which the husband and wife are living together as spouses, and that said right to administer or dispose of does not cease upon the separation of husband and wife. The husband’s right in this respect is full, absolute and complete. However, the law has been changed, and under Article 166 of the new Civil Code, the husband may not sell conjugal property without the consent of the wife.

2. ID.; ID.; SALE IN FRAUD OF THE WIFE. — For the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 1413 of the old Civil Code the allegation in the complaint "that the sale of the homestead was consummated without the knowledge and consent of" plaintiff and that "she was not shared with the purchase price thereof", together with the further allegation that plaintiff and her husband are living separate from each other, are sufficient. The homestead being conjugal partnership property of both spouses, in which the wife, even if living separately, had a right and interest, the dictates of reason and fairness demanded that the husband advise or inform the wife thereof. Absence of such advice amounted to a fraud on her rights.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

From the allegations of the complaint, it appears that plaintiff is the wife of Valentin Catalon. On January 30, 1937, Catalon was issued a homestead title (O.T.C. No. 1-4315) of a parcel of land in Callang, Roxas, Isabela. The title is in the name of Valentin Catalon, married to Margarita Tabunan. Plaintiff and Catalon are living separately and have been so for some time. On July 13, 1948, Catalon sold the homestead at P1,000 to the defendants, and a transfer certificate of title (No. T-880) issued in the names of the latter.

In the first cause of action it is prayed that plaintiff be allowed to repurchase the entire homestead. In the second, it is alleged that the homestead is conjugal property of the spouses; that the same was sold without plaintiff’s knowledge and consent, and without she having received portion of the selling price, and she, therefore, prayed that 1/2 of the homestead be given her. In the third, she prayed for the return of the produce of the homestead during the period of time that the same has been in the possession of defendants.

The defendants upon being summoned, moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue, that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, and that the complaint states no cause of action.

The Court sustained the motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff’s husband as administrator of the conjugal property, had the right and power to sell the homestead, without the consent of the wife; and that in accordance with Section 119, Commonwealth Act No. 141, the demand of the plaintiff that she be allowed to repurchase the property could not be granted as the repurchase was not effected within the period of 5 years from the date of the sale in 1948 (the action having been filed on January 19, 1955). A point raised by plaintiff, but which was also overruled by the court below, is that the sale was made in fraud of the conjugal rights of the wife and, therefore, the said sale is null and void under paragraph 2 of Article 1413 of the old Civil Code. The court a quo held that this provision refers to sales in violation of the provisions of the Civil Code and those in fraud of the rights of the wife, and cannot apply to the sale in question because there is no violation of the Civil Code or any allegation of any fraud committed against the wife.

On this appeal, it is claimed on behalf of the plaintiff- appellant that the sale as to 1/2 of the entire homestead is invalid and is not binding on the plaintiff-appellant; that the power or right of the husband to sell the conjugal property is recognized only in cases where the husband and wife are not separated. We do not find merit in these claims of the plaintiff-appellant. The right of the husband to administer and dispose of conjugal property of the spouses is not limited to the cases in which the husband and wife are living together as spouses, and that said right to administer or dispose of does not cease upon the separation of husband and wife. The husband’s right in this respect is full, absolute and complete. Article 1413 of the old Civil Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In addition to his powers as manager the husband may for a valuable consideration alienate and encumber the property of the conjugal partnership without the consent of the wife." (par. 1).

Claim is also made that defendants knew that the homestead they were buying belong to the spouses and that the wife was living separately from her husband, and that under such circumstances it is unfair and unjust that they be allowed to purchase the property, without advice having been given the wife and without her sharing in the proceeds thereof. We are aware of these circumstances, but the provisions of the law in force at the time of the sale must be enforced. The considerations that the plaintiff-appellant has raised must have impelled the amendment of the law (Art. 166, Civil Code), which now prohibits sale of conjugal property without the wife’s consent. But the provisions of the Civil Code (that the husband may not sell conjugal property without the consent of the wife) may not apply as the sale took place in 1948 as the application of the new law would destroy a vested right, the defendants having already acquired title to the property before the new provisions was enacted.

The most important issue raised on the appeal, however, is the supposed violation of paragraph 2 of Article 1413 of the old Civil Code in that the sale was in fraud of the wife and, therefore, could not prejudice her. The trial court’s ruling was to the effect that no concrete allegation of fraud committed against the wife or her heirs is made in the complaint. We disagree with this ruling. For the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 1413 of the old Civil Code the allegation under the first cause of action "that the sale was consummated without the knowledge and consent of" plaintiff and that "she was not shared with the purchase price thereof", together with the further allegation that plaintiff and her husband are living separate from each other, are sufficient. The homestead being conjugal partnership property of both spouses, in which the wife, even if living separately, had a right and interest, the dictates of reason and fairness demanded that the husband advise or inform the wife thereof. Absence of such advice amounted to a fraud of her rights.

As to prejudice to plaintiff’s rights, the allegation that she received no share in the proceeds of the sale, also alleged in the complaint, should be sufficient to bring the case under the above-mentioned paragraph 2, Article 1413 of the old Civil Code. It is true that the existence of actual prejudice can be determined only after the liquidation of the conjugal partnership (9 Manresa, pp. 578-581; Baello v. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 213). The fact that plaintiff’s rights may depend on a contingency, i.e., the presence of sufficient conjugal properties to respond for her share, does not mean that she has no right of action at all and that her action is premature. Under the facts alleged in the complaint, which are not contradicted in the motion for dismissal, the plaintiff is entitled, to protect her rights, to have her contingent interest in the homestead recorded and annotated on the title. This has been the holding of this Court in Baello v. Villanueva, supra, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court below, upon these same grounds, held that the donation in question is illegal, but in view of the fact that the action for nullity was prematurely brought, as the liquidation of the conjugal partnership had not been made, dismissed the complaint. We hold this conclusion of the court to be correct.

"But the appellant prays that in any event, some remedy be granted to safeguard her right should it appear from the liquidation of the conjugal partnership that this donation made by Juan Cruz Sanchez is prejudicial to her half of the property donated in whole or in part. It is contended that the donees may alienate the property to third persons, who, shielded by good faith, might render the plaintiff’s right to ask for the nullity, of the donation, if prejudicial, virtually ineffective.

"This petition is reasonable. Upon the supposition set forth by the attorneys for the appellant, her right to ask for the nullity of the donation would indeed become illusory, and she is, for this reason, entitled to some protection ensuring her exercise of this right later on. For this purpose, we consider that the best protection for the plaintiff would be to record in the register and in the title of the defendant donees this condition of their estate. In this way, whoever acquires from them the property donated will not be able to allege ignorance that they acquired a right subject to the plaintiff’s contingent right to ask for the nullity of the donation, should it be prejudicial to her in any way.

"Wherefore, it is held that the donation of the land in question made by Juan Cruz Sanchez in favor of the defendants is illegal and subject to nullification, according to the result of the liquidation of the conjugal property of the spouses Juan Cruz Sanchez and the plaintiff, and it is ordered that this condition be noted in the defendants’ title. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is also to be noted that allegation in the complaint is to the effect that defendants knew that the homestead was conjugal partnership property. This allegation bars any claim that defendants acquired the homestead in good faith, for value and without notice.

For the foregoing, we hold that under the allegations of the complaint plaintiff has a cause of action as well as a remedy, as above indicated, and that the complaint should not have been dismissed. The order of dismissal is, therefore, hereby reversed and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. So ordered.

Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452