0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
21 Ansichten1 Seite
Lot 7 was acquired during Pedro and Mary Ann's marriage and is therefore presumed to be their conjugal property. Pedro sold Lots 7 and 8 to Ravina without Mary Ann's consent. Under Article 124 of the Family Code, the sale of conjugal property without the consent of both spouses is void. As Lot 7 is presumed to be conjugal property, and Mary Ann did not consent to its sale, the sale of Lot 7 by Pedro to Ravina is void.
Lot 7 was acquired during Pedro and Mary Ann's marriage and is therefore presumed to be their conjugal property. Pedro sold Lots 7 and 8 to Ravina without Mary Ann's consent. Under Article 124 of the Family Code, the sale of conjugal property without the consent of both spouses is void. As Lot 7 is presumed to be conjugal property, and Mary Ann did not consent to its sale, the sale of Lot 7 by Pedro to Ravina is void.
Lot 7 was acquired during Pedro and Mary Ann's marriage and is therefore presumed to be their conjugal property. Pedro sold Lots 7 and 8 to Ravina without Mary Ann's consent. Under Article 124 of the Family Code, the sale of conjugal property without the consent of both spouses is void. As Lot 7 is presumed to be conjugal property, and Mary Ann did not consent to its sale, the sale of Lot 7 by Pedro to Ravina is void.
TOPIC: Charges upon and obligations of CPG, FC 121,
122, 123
FACTS:
Mary Ann and Pedro Villa-Abrille were husband and
wife. They had four children (herein respondents).
The properties involved in this case are: (1982) Lot 7 –
acquired by the spouses during their marriage; Lot 8 – acquired by Pedro when he was still single; House built on lot 7 and 8 – built from their joint efforts and the proceeds of a loan from DBP.
Pedro got a mistress. Pedro offered to sell the house
and two lots to petitioners Ravina. Mary Ann objected. Pedro still sold the properties without her consent
ISSUE: Whether sale of Lot 7 by Pedro was valid
considering the absence of Mary Ann’s consent?
HELD: LOT 7 is presumed to be Conjugal property of
spouses Pedro and Mary Ann. 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.
Sale or encumbrance of conjugal property concluded
after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, is governed by Article 124 of the same Code that now treats such a disposition to be void if done (a) without the consent of both the husband and the wife, or (b) in case of one spouse’s inability, the authority of the court.
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.