You are on page 1of 6

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


11
th
JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 14
Davao City

ANNA GERONIMO
Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. ____________

- versus - For: Annulment of Contract of Sale

PETER PASCUAL
Defendant
x ------------------------------------ x

MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court
respectfully submits this Memorandum, to wit:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Anna Geronimo filed this present case of annulment of contract of sale
between the plaintiff and Peter Pascual. The contract of sale involves a one
bedroom condominium unit covered by a Certificate of Title under the name
of Mr. Raul Geronimo, the plaintiffs husband, and which was sold to the
defendant without the plaintiffs consent.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff Anna Geronimo married her husband Raul Geronimo in 2006.
The object the Deed of Sale sought to be annulled the one bedroom
condominium unit bought by the husband in 2001. The condominium unit
was covered by a Certificate of Title in the name of Mr. Geronimo.
In April 2009, the plaintiff offered the condominium unit for sale to the
defendant for P2 million and to which the latter replied that he will call back
once the deed of sale and managers check were ready.
In May 2009, the plaintiff left for the United States. While staying
there plaintiff changed her mind about selling the condominium unit.
While the plaintiff was in the United States, the defendant called the
plaintiffs husband. Without the knowledge of the plaintiff, her husband
signed the deed of sale of the condominium unit and accepted the managers
check of the defendant.
In June 2009, plaintiff was informed by her husband that he already
signed the deed of sale and accepted the managers check of the defendant.
Plaintiff told her husband that she had already changed her mind.
Plaintiff offered to the defendant the return of the consideration for the
sale of the condominium unit but the defendant refused.
Thus, this case for annulment of contract of sale of the one bedroom
condominium unit between plaintiff and defendant.

ISSUES
The issues to be resolved in this case are as follows:
1. Whether the one bedroom condominium unit forms part of the
community properties of the Spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo.
2. Whether plaintiffs right over the joint administration and enjoyment of
the condominium unit was violated when this was sold by her husband
to the defendant without her consent.
3. Whether the contract of sale can be annulled.

ARGUMENTS
1. The one bedroom condominium unit forms part of the conjugal
properties of the Spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo.
The one bedroom condominium unit was bought by Raul Geronimo in
2001. Although the title of the property is solely on his name, the same is a
community property, having been brought into the marriage when the
plaintiff and her husband were married in 2006. This is pursuant to Article
76 of the Family Code, the law in effect at the time of the marriage between
the plaintiff and her husband, which provides that in the absence of any
property regime agreed upon by spouses, the regime of absolute community
of property, which consists of all the property owned by the spouses at the
time of the celebration of the marriage, shall govern their marital property
relationship.

2. Plaintiffs right over the joint administration and enjoyment of the
one bedroom condominium unit has been violated.
The administration and enjoyment of the condominium unit being a
community property is governed by first paragraph of Article 96 of the
Family Code which provides that these shall belong to both spouses jointly.
In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to
recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed
of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such
decision. While Article 96 of the Family Code speaks only of the
administration and enjoyment of the community property, plaintiff submits
that the power to dispose of the community property is within the ambit of
the phrase administration and enjoyment. This is for the reason that in the
second paragraph of Article 96, the assumption of powers of a spouse has
been limited and restricted so as not to include the power of disposition,
alienation and encumbrance. This implies, therefore, that the power to
administer is broadly treated under the first paragraph of Article 96 but may
be limited by law as in the case of the second paragraph of the said Article.
In the instant case, the sale of the subject condominium unit, as
shown by the fact that the Deed of Sale thereof was signed only by plaintiffs
husband, is one where the latter, without suffering from any incapacity
whatsoever, encumbers, alienates or disposes a community property without
the consent of the other spouse who is likewise capacitated. The transaction
is thus within the contemplation of the first paragraph of Article 96 of the
Family Code.

3. The contract of sale should be annulled.
In the case of Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa (G.R. No. 147978, January 23,
2002) the Supreme Court held that the law requires that the disposition of a
conjugal property by the husband as administrator in appropriate cases
requires the written consent of the wife, otherwise, the disposition is void.
The disposition of the community property was clearly made without
the consent of the plaintiff. While it is true that it was the plaintiff who made
the offer to sell the subject condominium unit to the defendant, the plaintiff
had changed her mind while in the US before the acceptance by the
defendant of the offer to sell was known to her. Her change of mind was also
before the defendant handed the managers check to the plaintiffs husband
and at the time plaintiffs husband signed the deed of sale of the subject
condominium unit. There is thus no consent yet by the plaintiff to speak of
because there was no manifestation of the meeting of the offer and the
acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the
contract, pursuant to Article 1319 of the Civil Code.
Moreover, defendants testimony that he will call back once the deed
of sale and managers check were ready all the more confirms that there
was no meeting of the minds yet because the acceptance was not absolute
and thus it is tantamount to a qualified acceptance which in effect
constitutes a counter offer pursuant Article 1319 of the Civil Code.
As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Malbarosa v. Court of
Appeals (G.R. No. 125761, April 30, 2003), the acceptance of an offer must
be made known to the offeror. Unless the offeror knows of the acceptance,
there is no meeting of the minds of the parties, no real concurrence of offer
and acceptance. Moreover, the offeror may withdraw its offer and revoke the
same before acceptance thereof by the offeree. The contract is perfected
only from the time an acceptance of an offer is made known to the offeror.
In the instant case, it is clear that the plaintiff had revoked the offer before
she came to know of the acceptance of the said offer by the defendant.
Thus, considering that the disposition of the common property was
made by the plaintiffs husband without the consent of the plaintiff, pursuant
to Article 96 of the Family Code, the plaintiff has all the right to go to court
to seek the proper remedy which includes the annulment of the contract.
In conclusion, plaintiff is entitled to the annulment of contract with
damages for the sale of the subject one bed room condominium unit.


PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Honorable Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against
defendant by annulling the contract of sale involving the one bed room
condominium unit.
Such other relief which are just and equitable under the circumstances
are likewise prayed for.
Davao City, Philippines, September 22, 2012.


ATTY. CHARNEM B. CAETE
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Roll No.: 57294
PTR No. 6789; 1/05/12; Davao
IBP No. 7982; 3/20/12; Davao
MCLE Compliance No. III-016 6/14/12
3rd Flr. Occea Bldg. Ponce St.,
Davao City


Copy furnished:



Counsel for Defendant
Address