Jader-Manalo v.

Camaisa
Petitioner: Thelma A. Jader-Manalo
Respondent: Norma Fernandez C. Camaisa and Edilberto Camaisa
Topic: Administration and Disposition of CPG
Facts:
Thelma A. Jader-Manalo came across and advertisement placed by
respondents, Spouses Norma Fernandez C. Camaisa and Edilberto Camaisa in
the Classified Ads Section of Bulletin Today for the sale of their ten-door
apartment in Makati and in Taytay, Rizal.
Petitioner negotiated for the purchase through a real estate broker. She made
a visual inspection of the lots and was shown the tax declarations, real
property tax payment receipts, etc.
Petitioner met with the vendors who are the respondent spouses. She made a
definite offer to buy the properties from respondent Edilberto Camaisa with
the knowledge and conformity of his wife, Norma Camaisa.
After some bargaining, petitioner and Edilberto agreed upon the purchase
price of P1.5M for the Tagaytay property and P2.1M for the Makati property to
be paid on instalment basis.
The agreement was handwritten by petitioner and signed by Edilberto. When
petitioner pointed out the conjugal nature of the properties, Edilberto assured
her of his wifes conformity and consent to the sale.
The formal typewritten Contracts to Sell were prepared and formally signed.
Petitioner delivered to Edilberto two checks for P200,000 and P100,000 as
downpayments.
Petitioner and respondents met again to clarify some provisions of the
contracts. They arranged a meeting again in order to incorporate the
notations and formally sign the contracts.
However, in the next meeting, petitioner was surprised when respondent
spouses informed her that they were backing out of the agreement because
they needed spot cash for the full amount of the consideration. Norma
refused to sign the contracts.
Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against
respondent before RTC-Makati. Trial court dismissed the complaint because
under Art 124 of the FC, the court cannot intervene to authorize the
transaction in the absence of the consent of the wife. CA affirmed the
dismissal.
Issue: WoN the husband may validly dispose of the conjugal property without the
wifes written consent
NO
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 as Art 124 of FC provides.
The properties which are the subject of the contracts were conjugal; hence,
for the contracts to sell to be effective, the consent of both husband and wife
must concur.

Norma Camaisa admittedly did not give her written consent to the sale. Even
if she actively participated in negotiating for the sale of the subject
properties, which she denied, her written consent to the sale is required by
law for its validity.
Petitioner herself even admits that Norma refused to sign the contracts to
sell.
Respondent Norma may have been aware of the negotiations for the sale of
their conjugal properties. However, being merely aware of a transaction is not
consent.