Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > December 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19797 December 17, 1966 MARCIANA VILLOCINO, ET AL. v. PEDRO DOYON, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19797. December 17, 1966.]

MARCIANA VILLOCINO and PROTACIO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PEDRO DOYON, Defendant-Appellant. CLETO P. EVANGELISTA, Intervenor-Appellant.

Manuel R. Potot for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Cleto P. Evangelista for defendant-appellant and for Intervenor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CONJUGAL PROPERTIES; ALIENATION BY THE HUSBAND OF PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE; EXTENT OF LIMITATION. — Husband’s power to alienate conjugal properties acquired before the effectivity of the new Civil Code is not without limitations. He cannot alienate the same to the prejudice of the wife or her heirs. Alienations made without the knowledge of the wife are presumed to be in fraud of her.

2. ID.; ALIENATION BY HUSBAND INVALID INSOFAR AS WIFE’S SHARE. — As conjugal properties belong equally to husband and wife, any alienation made by the husband without the consent of his wife prejudices her insofar as it includes a part or the whole of the wife’s half and is, to that extent, invalid. (Baello v. Villanueva 54 Phil. 213 (1930). Sale of Lots Nos. 10375 (1/2) and 7924 to appellant Doyon and the subsequent transfer of Lot No. 7924 by appellant Doyon to appellant Evangelista are invalid to the extent that the rights of appellee Villocino to one half are affected.

3. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; ALIENATION BY HUSBAND OF CONJUGAL PROPERTY WITHOUT CONSENT OF WIFE; FRAUD IN ISSUE. — Parties to this case entered into a stipulation of facts in which they asked the trial court to consider among other things, the decision in Civil Case No. 549 wherein the court said: "Es evidente que el marido Bartolome Rodriguez ha abusa de los poderes que tenia como admnistrador de los bienes de la sociedad de gananciales al disponer de cuatro parcelas ganaciales sin conocimiento ni consentimiento de mujer y gastar para su propio beneficio exclusivamente da las cautidades recibidas como precio de venta. De permitir que Bartolome Rodriguez continua’ siendo administrador podria continuar disponiendo de todas las propiedades de la sociedad conyugal en perjuico de su esposa." The above quotation clearly shows that fraud against the wife was in issue. Furthermore, recovery of title and possession of the lot was the ultimate objective of plaintiffs, but to attain that goal they must need first travel over the road of relief on the ground of fraud (Rone v. Claro, 91 Phil. 250, 253 [1952]).

4. LAND REGISTRATION; ANNOTATION OF CONDITION OF INVALIDITY OF SALES ON THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. — As only one half of Lot 10375 had been sold and that in all probability the wife’s share has not been affected but considering that the other lot (Lot 7924) is unregistered, the annotation of the condition on the certificate of title covering Lot No. 10375 is necessary to compensate for the lack of registration of the other lot.

5. CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP; LIQUIDATION; INVALIDITY OF SALE, EFFECT ON. — The invalidity of the sales to appellants shall be deemed subject to the outcome of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership and that in the meantime, this condition should be noted in the certificate of title covering Lot No. 10375.


D E C I S I O N


REGALA, J.:


This case was filed by the appellees to recover from the appellants the possession and ownership of two parcels of land, one situated in Kananga, Leyte, and another one in Ormoc City. After hearing, the Court of First Instance of Leyte rendered judgment declaring appellees the owners of the land. From that judgment appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals but the latter Court certified the case to us as the facts are not in dispute and the issues raised are questions of law.

The two lots in question, Lot No. 10370 and Lot No. 7924 of the Ormoc Cadastre, were conjugal properties of appellee Marciana Villocino and Bartolome Rodriguez, now deceased. Without the knowledge of his wife, Rodriguez sold on August 7, 1951 one half of Lot No. 10375 and on December 20, 1951 the whole of Lot No. 7924 to the appellant Pedro Doyon. He sold two other lots to Emilia Conui Vda. De Aviles, also without the knowledge of his wife. Rodriguez made the sales even as his wife and son, the other appellee herein, Protasio Rodriguez, were seeking in Civil Case No. 549 of the Leyte Court of First Instance a change of administration of the conjugal partnership.

In its decision in Civil Case No. 549, the Court found that the husband, who was living with a concubine, had sold four parcels of land without the knowledge and consent of his wife and, for this reason, placed all properties of the conjugal partnership under the latter’s administration. Later, these lots were to be included in the order of execution but, on motion of appellant Doyon and Emilia Conui Vda. de Aviles, the other vendee, the Court excluded the lots from execution. On September 6, 1957, appellant Doyon sold Lot No. 7924 to the other appellant, Atty. Cleto P. Evangelista, who represented him in Civil Case No. 549.

On June 30, 1959, appellees filed this case against appellant Doyon to recover the possession and ownership of the lots in question. Appellant Evangelista intervened, claiming ownership of Lot No. 7924. In declaring appellees owners of the land, the Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is to be noted that when the late Bartolome Rodriguez sold the two parcels of land, the consent of the wife, Marciana Villocino, had not been secured so that pursuant to Article 166 of the new Civil Code, the sale of the defendant (Doyon) is null and void; 1 consequently the sale by the defendant to the intervenor [Evangelista] has no force and effect."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellants contend that since the lots in this case were acquired by appellee Villocino and her late husband before the effectivity of the new Civil Code, the sales in this case should be governed by the provision of the Spanish Civil Code. It is then urged that, under Article 1413 of the latter Code, the husband has the power to alienate property of the conjugal partnership even without the consent of his wife.

Indeed, Article 166 of the new Civil Code provides that —

"Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. If she refuses unreasonably to give her consent, the court may compel her to grant the same.

"This article shall not apply to property acquired by the conjugal partnership before the effective date of this Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

while the Spanish Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 1413. In addition to his powers as manager the husband may for valuable consideration alienate and encumber the property of the conjugal partnership without the consent of the wife.

"Nevertheless no alienation or agreement which the husband may make with respect to such property in contravention of this code or in fraud of the wife shall prejudice her or her heirs."cralaw virtua1aw library

But while we agree with appellants that the consent of the wife (appellee Villocino) was not necessary for the validity of her husband’s sale because the lots sold had been acquired by the couple before August 30, 1950 when the new Code took effect (Tabunan v. Marigmen, 101 Phil. 288 [1957]), it is nevertheless true that even under the former law the husband’s power to alienate properties of the conjugal partnership is not without limitation. (Simbre v. Agustin, 55 Off. Gaz. 5016 [1958]; Liguez v. Court of Appeals, 54 Off. Gaz. 4261 [1957]. See also Harden v. Peña, 87 Phil. 609 [1950] For one thing, such power, as we have seen, cannot be exercised to the prejudice of the wife or her heirs. What is more, alienations made without the knowledge of the wife are presumed to be in fraud of her. (Simbre v. Agustin, supra; Tabunan v. Marigmen, supra) For, as conjugal properties belong equally to husband and wife, any alienation made by the husband without the consent of his wife prejudices her in so far as it includes a part or the whole of the wife’s half and is, to that extent, invalid. (Baello v. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 213 [1930]).

Indeed, in Civil Case No. 549 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, the administration of the conjugal partnership was transferred to appellee Villocino precisely because the Court found that the late Bartolome Rodriguez had fraudulently disposed of conjugal properties (among which were the lots in question) without the knowledge and consent of his wife. Thus, in the decision in that case, the Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Es evidente que el marido Bartolome Rodriguez ha abusado de los poderes que tenia como administrador de los bienes de la sociedad de gananciales al disponer de cuatro parcelas gananciales sin conocimiento ni consentimiento de mujer y gastar para su precio de venta. De permitir que Bartolome Rodriguez continua siendo administrador, podria continuar disponiendo de todas les propiedades de la sociedad conyugal en perjuicio de su esposa."cralaw virtua1aw library

This excerpt from the decision in Civil Case No. 549 should likewise answer appellants’ contention that the present case was filed as an action for recovery of possession and ownership, not for the annulment of sale, and that the issue of fraud was never put in issue by the pleadings. The parties to this case entered into a stipulation of facts in which they asked the trial court to consider among other things, the decision in Civil Case No. 549. The above quotation from the decision in that case clearly shows that fraud against the wife was in issue. Moreover, as this Court once said, "It may be that the recovery of title and possession of the lot was the ultimate objective of plaintiffs, but to attain that goal, they must need first travel over the road of relief on the ground of fraud." (Rone v. Claro, 91 Phil. 250, 253 [1952]).

We therefore hold that the sale of Lots No. 10375 (1/2) and 7924 to appellant Doyon and the subsequent transfer of Lot No. 7924 by appellant Doyon to appellant Evangelista are invalid to the extent that the rights of appellee Villocino to one half are affected. Since any prejudice to the wife can be determined only after the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the sales in question should be deemed subject to such contingency which should be noted in the corresponding certificate of title. (Baello v. Villanueva, supra; Tabunan v. Marigmen, supra). The Court is aware that only one half of Lot No. 10375 had been sold and that in all probability the wife’s share has not been affected but considering that the other lot (Lot No. 7924) is unregistered, it is believed that the annotation of the condition on the certificate of title covering Lot No. 10375 is necessary to compensate for the lack of registration of the other lot.

WHEREFORE, with the modification that the invalidity of the sales to appellants shall be deemed subject to the outcome of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership and that, in the meantime this condition should be noted in the certificate of title covering Lot No. 10375, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The sale is not void but only voidable at the instance of the wife. Civil Code Art. 173.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





December-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21168 December 16, 1966 BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. GAVINO CAMUNAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-14441 December 17, 1966 PEDRO R. PALTING v. SAN JOSE PETROLEUM INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. L-21915 December 17, 1966 GEORGE W. LUFT COMPANY, INC. v. NGO GUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21803 December 17, 1966 BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC. v. MANILA HOTEL WORKERS’ UNION-PTGWO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21775 December 17, 1966 CO PEK, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-19457 December 17, 1966 VICTORIO MERCADO, ET AL. v. FELIX R. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. L-18411 December 17, 1966 MAGDALENA ESTATES, INC. v. ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16394 December 17, 1966 JOSE STA. ANA, JR., ET AL. v. ROSA HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-18328 December 17, 1966 DIOSDADA SABINO v. CONRADO CUBA

  • G.R. No. L-21763 December 17, 1966 MUNICIPALITY OF COMPOSTELA, CEBU v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-19740 December 17, 1966 SEVERINO GAGOLA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18630 December 17, 1966 APOLONIO TANJANCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17392 December 17, 1966 JOSE SORIANO v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

  • G.R. No. L-21335 December 17, 1966 ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. VIVENCIA ANDO PEPITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25641 December 17, 1966 RAFAEL M. ABAYA v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21601 December 17, 1966 NIELSON & COMPANY, INC. v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-19879 December 17, 1966 CINEMA, STAGE & RADIO ENTERTAINMENT FREE WORKERS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18089 December 17, 1966 VICTORINA ZABALLERO MILLAR v. RURAL BANK OF LUCENA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16379 December 17, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAO WAN SING

  • G.R. No. L-18393 December 17, 1966 USAFFE VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19797 December 17, 1966 MARCIANA VILLOCINO, ET AL. v. PEDRO DOYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20011 December 17, 1966 PEDRO CABALAG, ETC., ET AL. v. ROXAS Y CIA., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17742 December 17, 1966 DON VICENTE NOBLE v. MARIA S. NOBLE

  • G.R. No. L-18159 December 17, 1966 CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18826 December 17, 1966 ANTONIO Y. MAYUGA v. CESAR. R. MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-23139 December 17, 1966 MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17571 December 17, 1966 HOSPICIA ENCABO, ET AL. v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-22395 December 17, 1966 STATE BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22209 December 17, 1966 PHILIPPINES INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25503 December 17, 1966 LEON DEL ROSARIO v. HON. BIENVENIDO CHINGCUANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-16745 December 17, 1966 AURORA CAMARA VDA. DE ZUBIRI v. WENCESLAO ZUBIRI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19548 December 22, 1966 NICEFORO S. AGATON v. PATRICIO PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26723 December 22, 1966 ARTHUR MEDlNA Y YUMUL v. MARCELO F. OROZCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-20330 December 22, 1966 ADOLFO RACAZA v. SUSANA REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19297 December 22, 1966 MARVEX COMMERCIAL CO. INC. v. PETRA HAWPIA & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19173 December 27, 1966 ROSE DESAMITO v. TRINIDAD CASAS-CUYEGKENG

  • G.R. No. L-21278 December 27, 1966 FEATI UNIVERSITY v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-21950 December 28, 1966 AMBROCIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVA BERROYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19460 December 28, 1966 ROQUE BAIRAN v. AGUSTIN TAN SIU LAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20406 December 29, 1966 ENRIQUE R. YU KING v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-19945 December 29, 1966 NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. PRISCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18210 December 29, 1966 LAURENTIO ARMENTIA v. ERLINDA PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18735 December 29, 1966 NARCISO DEL ROSARIO v. YATCO, ET AL.