Fuentes vs Roca

G.R. No. 173902

April 21, 2010
Petitioners: Manuel Fuentes and Leticia Fuentes
Respondents: Conrado Roca, Annabelle Joson, Rose Marie Cristobal, Pilar
Malcampo

FACTS
On, Oct 11, 1982, Traciano T. Roca bought a 358 square meter lot in Canlear
Zamboanga City from his mother (Sabina Tarroza). But Traciano, did not for the
meantime have the registered title transferred to his name. 6 years later in
1988, Traciano offered to sell the lot to petitioners Manuel and Leticia Fuentes
(Fuentes spouses), through the help of Atty. Romulo D. Plagata who would
prepare the documents and requirements to complete the sale. In the agreement
between Tarciano and Fuentes spouses, there will be a Php 60,000 down
payment. Within 6 months, Traciano was to clear certain structures and
occupants on the land and after the consent of the estranged wife of Tarciano.
Upon compliance of Traciano with these conditions, The Fuentes spouses were to
take possession of the lot and pay him additional Php 140,000 or Php 160,000
depending on whether he succeeded in demolishing the house standing on it.
Atty. Plagata thus went about to complete such tasks and claimed that he went
to Manila to get the signature of Rosario but notarized the document at
Zamboanga . The deed of sale was executed January 11, 1989. On January 28,
1990 Tarciano died and Rosario followed 9 months after while the Fuentes
spouses and possession and control over the lot. 8 years later in 1997, the
children of Tarciano and Rosario filed a case to annul the sale and reconvey the
property on the ground that the sale was void since the consent of Rosario was
not attained and that Rosarios signature was a mere forgery. The Fuentes
spouses claim that the 4-year prescription period for nullifying the sale on the
ground of fraud has already lapsed.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Fuentes spouses ruling that there was no forgery,
that the testimony of Atty. Plagata who witnessed the signing of Rosario must be
given weight, and that the action has already prescribed.

On the other hand, the CA reversed the ruling of the RTC stating that first, the
court does not give credence to Atty. Plagatas testimony that he saw Rosario
sign the document in Quezon City as its jurat (certificate added to an affidavit
stating when, before whom and where it was made)<referring to its
notarization> said otherwise. CA also noted the significant variance in signature.
Since they were married in 1950, CA concluded that their property relation
should be governed by the Civil Code which provided that the sale of Conjugal
Property without the consent of the other spouse is voidable and the action must
be brought within 10 years. Given that the transaction was in 1989 and the
action was brought in 1997 hence it was well within the prescriptive period.
Hence, CA upheld the annulment entitled the spouses to reimbursement of what
they paid him plus legal interest. Since Fuentes spouses were builders of good
faith, they were entitled for the payment of the values of improvements on the
lot ( Art. 448 of civil code). CA did not award damages in favor of the Rocas .
Fuentes went to SC and filed for petition for review.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Rosarios signature on the document of consent to her
husband Tarcianos sale of their conjugal land to the Fuentes spouses was forged;
2. Whether or not the Rocas action for the declaration of nullity of that sale to
the spouses already prescribed; and

3. Whether or not only Rosario, the wife whose consent was not had, could bring
the action to annul that sale.

RULING:
1. The SC ruled that there was forgery due to the difference in the signatures of
Rosario in the document giving consent and another document executed at the
same time period. The SC noted that the CA was correct in ruling that the heavy
handwriting in the document, which stated the signature, was completely
different from the sample signature. There was no evidence provided to explain
why there was such difference in the handwriting. Atty. Plagata admittedly
falsified the jurat of affidavit of consent due to defective notarization.

2. Contrary to the ruling of CA, the law that applies to this case is the family code
and not the Civil Code. Although Tarciano and Rosario got married in 1950,
Tarciano sold the conjugal property to the Fuentes spouses on January 11, 1989,
a few months after the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. In Contrast to
Article 173 of the Civil Code, Article 124 of the Family Code does not provide a
period within which the wife who gave no consent may assail her husbands sale
of the real property. It simply provides that without the other spouses written
consent or a court order allowing the sale, the same would be void. Under the
provisions of the Civil Code governing contracts, a void or inexistent contract has
no force and effect from the very beginning. But, although a void contract has no
legal effects even if no action is taken to set it aside, when any of its terms have
been performed, an action to declare its inexistence is necessary to allow
restitution of what has been given under it. This action, according to Art.1410 of
the Civil Code does not prescribe. Here, the Rocas filed an action against the
Fuentes spouses in 1997 for annulment of sale and reconveyance of the real
property that Tarciano without Rosarios written consent. The passage of time did
not erode to bring such action.

3. It is argued by the Fuentes Spouses that it is only the spouse, Rosario, who
can file such a case to assail the validity of the sale but given that Rosario was
already dead no one could bring the action anymore. The SC ruled that such
position is wrong since as stated above, that sale was void from the beginning.
Consequently, the land remained the property of Tarciano and Rosario despite
that sale. When the two died, they passed on the ownership of the property to
their heirs, namely, the Rocas. As lawful owners, the Rocas had the right, under
Article 429 of the Civil Code, to exclude any person from its enjoyment and
disposal.

In fairness to Fuentes Spouses, they should be entitled, among other things, to

recover from Tarciano heirs, the Rocas, Php200,000 that they paid hi, with legal
interest until fully paid, chageable against his estate.

Conclusion:
Court denies the petition of the Fuentes Spouses and affirms, with modification
the decision of CA
Rules
Art. 105 of Family Code

The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains
already established between spouses before the effectivity of this Code, without
prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or
other laws, as provided in Article 256. (n)

Art. 173. Civil Code

The wife may, during the marriage, and within ten years from the transaction
questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband
entered into without her consent, when such consent is required, or any act or
contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the
conjugal partnership property. Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or
her heirs, after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of
property fraudulently alienated by the husband. (n)

Art. 124. Family Code

The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership 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.

Art. 526 Civil Code.

He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his
title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.

He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the
foregoing.

Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good
faith. (433a)