Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

KHO, Francis Cedric G.

1D Persons and Family Relations


G.R. NO. 158040, April 14, 2008

Art 124 of Family Code. Absence of authority or consent of wife shall make the
disposition or encumbrance void.

FACTS: Petitioners separated in 1982 leaving behind two lots: - Lot 896-B-9-A with a bodega
(LOT A) - Lot 896-B-9-B with the petitioners' house (LOT B) (This is the Lot which talks about
conjugal partnership of gains). Petitioner Onesiforo Alinas (Onesiforo) and respondent Victor
Alinas (Victor) are brothers. Petitioners entrusted both properties to Respondents with the
agreement that any income from rentals should be remitted to the Social Security System (SSS)
and to the Rural Bank of Oroquieta City (RBO), as such rentals were believed sufficient to pay
off petitioners' loans with said institutions. Lot 896-B-9-A with the bodega was mortgaged as
security for the loan obtained from the RBO, while Lot 896-B-9-B with the house was
mortgaged to the SSS. Onesiforo alleges that he left blank papers with his signature on them to
facilitate the administration of said properties.

Sometime in 1993, petitioners find out that both lots were titled in respondents' name.
Apparently both LOTS were foreclosed, and reacquired by respondents. Records show that
Onesiforo executed Absolute Deed of Sale, dated March 10 1989, selling LOT B to Victor
wherein the latter’s signature also appears in a notarized Absolute Deed of Sale whereby
petitioner Onesiforo acknowledged that his brother Victor used his own money to redeem Lot
896-B-9-B from the SSS and, thus, Victor became the owner of said lot. Petitioners file for
recovery of lots.

RTC decision: Lot A is respondents'. The sale of LOT B, is null and void, since Onesiforo sold w/o
wife's consent. “ There is a bereft of proof to support the petitioners’ allegations that they left
the care and administration of their properties to respondent spouses; and that there is an
agreement between petitioners and respondent spouses regarding remittance to the SSS and
the RBO of rental income from their properties. Thus, respondent spouses may not be held
responsible for the non-payment of the loan with RBO and the eventual foreclosure of
petitioners' Lot 896-B-9-A. Respondents file with CA.
CA decision: Lot A is respondents'. LOT B's sale in so far as Rosario's share of 1/2 is concerned is
of no force and effect.

ISSUE: WON sale conducted by husband without consent of wife to whom he is separated with
is void (YES)

HELD: YES - Art 124 of FC says that the absence of authority or consent of wife shall make the
disposition or encumbrance void. When Victor and Elena who bought land they:
1. Knew that it was conjugal property.
2. Knew that the wife did not know of the selling since they were separated.
3. Sale documents do not bear the wife‘s signature, thus they are seen as buyers of bad faith.

However, petitioners are still ordered by court to reimburse respondent spouses the
redemption price plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
complaint, and after the judgment becomes final and executory, the amount due shall earn
12% interest per annum until the obligation is satisfied for the necessary expenses on the
property as provided under Article 546 of the same Code.