MANUEL O. FUENTES AND LETICIA L. FUENTES, ​petitioners, vs. ​CONRADO G.

ROCA,
ANABELLE R. JOSON, ROSE MARIE R. CRISTOBAL AND PILAR MALCAMPO​,
respondents.

Doctrine ​Chapter 4 on ​Conjugal Partnership of Gains o ​ f the Family Code expressly

supersedes Title VI, Book I of the Civil Code on ​Property Relations Between Husband and
Wife​. The Family Code provisions were made to apply to already existing conjugal
partnerships without prejudice to vested rights.

SuperSummary ​Sabrina Tarroza owned a lot in Zamboanga City that she sold to her son,
Tarciano Roca. Tarciano offered to sell the lot to Manuel and Leticia Fuentes. With the
help of Atty. Plagata, the parties signed an agreement which was to take effect in six
months and P60,000 was to be paid as down payment. Within those six months Tarciano
was to clear the lot of obstructions and secure the consent of his wife, Rosario Roca. Atty.
Plagata claimed to have secured an affidavit of consent from Rosario in Manila, and had it
notarized in Zamboanga. On Jan. 11, 1989, Tarciano executed a deed of sale,
subsequently, Fuentes spouses paid him P140,000, for a total of P200,000 paid to
Tarciano, as mentioned in their agreement. 8 years later, the heirs of Tarciano and Roca
filed for an annulment of the sale and reconveyance of the land against the Fuentes
spouses before the RTC. The RTC ruled in favor of the Fuentes spouses, prompting the
Rocas to elevate the case to the CA, which ruled in favor of them.

Facts
● Tarciano offered to sell his lot to the Fuentes spouses and they entered into an
agreement with the help of Atty. Plagata.
● P60,000 was paid Tarciano as down payment, P140,000 paid after the execution of
Deed of Sale, on the part of Fuentes spouses. Tarciano was to clear his lot from
obstructions and secure consent from his wife Rosario.
● 8 years later the heirs of Tarciano and Rosario filed for an annulment of the sale and
reconveyance of the land.
● The RTC ruled in favor of the Fuentes spouses. Consequently, the Rocas appealed
the case to the CA, which ruled in favor of them.
Issue
1. Whether or not Rosario’s signature in the document of consent was forged
2. Whether or not the Rocas’ action for the declaration of nullity of the sale already
prescribed
3. Whether or not only Rosario, the wife whose consent was not had, could bring the
action to annul that sale

Ruling​ (‘When the court starts saying doctrine, in belongs in the Ruling section.’)
1. The Court agrees with the CA’s finding that ​Rosario’s signature was forged. The CA
found that Rosario’s signature strokes on the affidavit appeared heavy, deliberate
and forced. That Rosario had been living away from Tarciano for 30 years, Tarciano
would have been tempted to forge the former’s signature in order to avoid conflict.

Atty. Plagata admittedly falsified the jurat of the affidavit of consent. ​The falsified
jurat​, taken together with the ​marks of forgery in the signature ​invalidates such
 document as proof of Rosario’s consent to the sale of land. The sale is void without
an authentic consent.

2. Contrary to the ruling of the CA, ​the Family Code, not the Civil code, applies to this
case. Tarciano sold the conjugal property on January 11 1989, a few months after
the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. ​Article 124 of the Family Code does
not provide a period ​within which the wife who gave no consent may assail her
husband’s sale of the property. ​Without the written consent of the other spouse or a
court order, the sale would be void.

3. The ​sale was void from the beginning. The land remained to be the property of
Tarciano and Rosario despite that sale. ​When Tarciano and Rosario died, the Rocas
became lawful owners of the property and had the right, under Article 429 of the Civil
Code, to exclude any person from its enjoyment and disposal.

Since the Fuentes spouses appeared to have acted in good faith in attempting to
legally acquire the land, they should be ​entitled to recover from the Rocas​, the
P200,000 that they paid him, with legal interest until fully paid.

Disposition
The Supreme Court, through Justice Abad, denied the petition and affirmed with modification
the Decision of the Court of Appeals.

● The Deed of Sale executed and Transfer Certificate of Title issued in favor of the
Fuentes spouses were declared void.
● Register of Deeds of Zamboanga City was directed to reinstate the Transfer
Certificate of Title in the name of Tarciano Roca married to Rosario Gabriel
● The Rocas’ are ordered to pay the Fuentes spouses the P200,000 that the latter paid
to Tarciano, with legal interest.
● The Rocas’ are ordered, at their option, to indemnify the Fuentes spouses for
introducing improvements to the disputed lot.
● The RTC of Zamboanga City is directed to receive evidence and determine the
amount of indemnity the Fuentes spouses are entitled to.