PATROCINIA RAVINA and WILFREDO RAVINA vs.

MARY ANN VILLA-ABRILLE, for herself and in behalf of INGRID DLYN P. VILLA ABRILLE, INGREMARK DWIGHT VILLA ABRILLE, INGRESOLL DIELS VILLA ABRILLE AND INGRELYN DYAN VILLA ABRILLE G.R. No. 160708 October 16, 2009 Charges upon and obligations of CPG without consent Ownership, Adminstration and Enjoyment disposition and encumbrance

and purchased the property of Carmelita using the proceeds of the sale) ISSUES (1) Whether the Lot 7 is an exclusive property of Pedro or conjugal property (2) Whether the sale of Lot 7 was valid considering the absence of Mary Anns consent (3) Whether the petitioners are buyers in good faith, hence, entitled to reimbursement of their payment

FACTS In 1982, during the marriage of respondent Mary Ann Pasaol Villa Abrille and Pedro, Villa Abrille, they acquired a parcel of land (Lot 7) registered in their names. This lot is adjacent to another land (Lot 8) which Pedro acquired when he was still single, and which is registered solely under his name. Subsequently, the spouses obtained a loan from DBP and built a house on the two lots + improvements. When Pedro had a mistress in 1991 and neglected his family, Mary Ann sold/mortgaged their movables to support the family and the studies of her children. Pedro, by himself, offered to sell the house and the two lots to petitioners Ravina. Mary Ann objected and notified the petitioners of such objection, but in June 1991, Pedro still sold the house and lots without her consent (Mary Ann did not sign her name in the Deed of Sale). Later, Pedro transferred all their belongings from the house to an apartment. Mary Ann and her children were also stopped from entering the house. Mary Ann and her children (respondents) filed a complaint for Annulment of Sale, among other actions against Pedro and the petitioners. During trial Pedro claimed that the house was built with his own money. Petitioners assert that Lot 7 was Pedros exclusive property, acquired by him through barter or exchange (Pedro and his sister agreed to exchange their exclusive lots; later, Pedro sold Lot 7 to another person

RULING 1. Conjugal Lot 7 was acquired in 1982 during Pedro and Mary Anns marriage. No evidence was adduced to show that the property was acquired through exchange or barter. The presumption of the conjugal nature of the property subsists in the absence of clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence to overcome said presumption or to prove that the subject property is exclusively owned by Pedro. Likewise, the house built on Lot 7 is conjugal property, having been constructed through the joint efforts of the spouses, who had obtained a loan from DBP to construct the house. 2.) Sale was VOID Under Art. 124 of the FC, disposition of a conjugal property is void if done a) without the consent of both the husband and wife, or b) in case of one spouses inability, the authority of the court. The particular provision in the New Civil Code giving the wife ten (10) years to annul the alienation or encumbrance was not carried over to the Family Code. Thus, the alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal partnership property by the husband without the consent of the wife is null and void. Hence, just like the rule in absolute community of property, if the husband, without knowledge and consent of the wife, sells conjugal property, such sale is void. If the sale was with the knowledge but without the approval of the wife, thereby resulting in a disagreement, such sale is annullable at the

instance of the wife who is given five (5) years from the date the contract implementing the decision of the husband to institute the case. Here, Mary Ann timely filed the action for annulment of sale within five (5) years from the date of sale and execution of the deed. However, her action to annul the sale pertains only to the conjugal house and lot and does not include the lot covered by Lot 8, a property exclusively belonging to Pedro and which he can dispose of freely without Mary Anns consent. 3.) Buyers in bad faith; no reimbursement A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property. For a person dealing with land registered in the name of and occupied by the seller whose capacity is restricted, such as Arts. 166/173/124 of the FC, to establish status as a buyer in GF, he must show that he inquired into the latters capacity to sell in order to establish himself as a buyer for value in good faith. Here, petitioners were apprised by Mary Anns lawyer of her objection to the sale and yet they still proceeded to purchase the property without Mary Anns written consent. Moreover, the respondents were the ones in actual, visible and public possession of the property at the time the transaction was being made. Thus, at the time of sale, petitioners knew that Mary Ann has a right to or interest in the subject properties and yet they failed to obtain her conformity to the deed of sale. Hence, petitioners cannot now invoke the protection accorded to purchasers in good faith. Article 449 of the NCC which provides that (h)e who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity, is applicable in this case No reimbursement. PETITION DENIED