THE CASE OF THE WISHY WASHY SELLER

I. ISSUES
1. Whether Anna Geronimos written consent was needed to perfect the contract?
2. Whether Anna Geronimo estopped from refusing to execute the sale when she gave her
consent initially?

II. RULE OF LAW

In determining the validity of the sale between Peter Pascual and Raul Geronimo, the group will
use the following provisions and case to justify assess the validity of the sale and considering the
consent given by the wide, Anna Geronimo.

LAW
What is a valid contract of Sale (Article 1318 of the Civil Code)
There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:
1. Consent of the contracting parties
2. Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract
3. Cause of the obligation which is established

Article 1431 of the Civil Code

Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making
it, it cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

Article 96 of the Family Code

The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouse jointly.
In case of disagreement, the husbands decision shall prevail subject to recourse to the court by
the wide for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five year from the date of the
contract implementing such decision.

JURISPRUDENCE
Jader-Manalo v Camaisa
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 properties subject of the contracts in this case were conjugal; hence, for the contracts to sell
to be effective the consent of both husband and wife must concur.

III. APPLICATION OF THE LAW

Article 1318 the Civil Code provides that there is no contract unless the following
requisites concur: (a) consent of the contracting parties (b) object certain which is the subject
matter of the contract and (c) cause of the obligation which is established.

In the case at bar, plaintiff Anna Geronimo filed a suit for annulment of contract with
damages against defendant Peter Pascual on the ground of the absence of the first requisite which
is her consent regarding the sale of their one bedroom condominium unit. Article 96 of the Family
Code expressly recognizes that the administration and enjoyment of the community property shall
belong to both spouses jointly. The same provision expressly provides that while one spouse can
assume solely the administration of the common properties when the other spouse is incapacitated
or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, these powers do
not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the
other spouse.

The requisite of consent is a material factor in determining the validity of the assailed
contract. The Court emphasized in the case of Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa (2002) that the 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. In the present case, despite
initially agreeing to the sale of the property which was eventually sold to Peter Pascual prior to the
retraction of her consent, the sale was invalidated by the lack of consent from Anna. Moreover,
Annas verbal representation did not estop her because in the first place, the contract is invalid.1

Anna Geronimo is not in estoppel since she did not execute any written consent but rather,
his husband and the defendant merely relied on her verbal representations. It is thus held that due
to the lack of a valid written consent, the contract entered to by the parties is void.

IV. CONCLUSION

The main issue in the case is Whether Anna Geronimos written consent was needed to perfect
the contract to make the sale valid. Considering the facts of the case, we resolved to give
credence to Annas claim that her inability to provide consent invalidated the deed of sale
executed in favor of Peter.

On the second issue whether Anna Geronimo is estopped from refusing to execute the sale. The
argument that Annas previous verbal representation showing her approval in selling the land in
favor of Peter estopped her from claiming that the sale is invalid will not hold water because in
the first place, the sale of the conjugal property is void due to lack of consent. Hence, the
annulment of contract case filed by Anna will prosper and the property with the certificate of title
must be returned to the spouses while the money paid must be returned to Peter.

1 Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa, 374 SCRA 498 (2002).