Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

No.

Arturo and Esther appear to have been married before the


ABALOS VS MACATANGAY, JR. effectivity of the Family Code. There being no indication that they
G.R. No. 155043 September 30 2004
have adopted a different property regime, their property relations
would automatically be governed by the regime of conjugal
FACTS:
Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos are the registered owners of a partnership of gains. The subject land which had been admittedly
parcel of land with improvements located at Azucena St., Makati acquired during the marriage of the spouses forms part of their
City. Armed with a SPA issued by Esther, Arthuros wife, he conjugal partnership.
executed a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA) in favor
Under the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the
of Macatangay, binding himself to sell to latter the subject property
conjugal partnership. This right is clearly granted to him by law.
and not to offer the same to any other party within 30 days from date.
More, the husband is the sole administrator. The wife is not entitled
Full payment would also be effected as soon as possession of the
as of right to joint administration.
property shall have been turned over to Macatangay. Macatangay
gave an earnest money amounting to P5,000.00 to be deducted from
The husband, even if he is statutorily designated as administrator of
the purchase price of P1,300,000.00 in favor of the spouses.
the conjugal partnership, cannot validly alienate or encumber any
real property of the conjugal partnership without the wifes consent.
Subsequently, Esther executed a SPA appointing her sister,
Similarly, the wife cannot dispose of any property belonging to the
Bernadette Ramos, to act for and in her behalf relative to the transfer
conjugal partnership without the conformity of the husband. The law
of the property to the respondent. After, Arturo and Esther had a
is explicit that the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership without
marital squabble brewing at that time and Macatangay, to protect his
the husbands consent, except in cases provided by law.
interest, made an annotation in the title of the property. He then sent
a letter informing the spouses of his readiness to pay the full amount
More significantly, it has been held that prior to the liquidation of the
of the purchase price. Esther, through her SPA, executed in favor of
conjugal partnership, the interest of each spouse in the conjugal
Macatangay, a Contract to sell the property to the extent of her
assets is inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a
conjugal interest for the sum of P650,000 less the sum already
legal nor an equitable estate, and does not ripen into title until it
received by her and Arturo. She agreed to surrender the property to
appears that there are assets in the community as a result of the
Macatangay within 20 days along with the deed of absolute sale
liquidation and settlement. The interest of each spouse is limited to
upon full payment, while he promised to pay the balance of the
the net remainder or remanente liquido (haber ganancial) resulting
purchase price for P1, 290,000.00 after being placed in possession of
from the liquidation of the affairs of the partnership after its
the property.
dissolution. Thus, the right of the husband or wife to one-half of the
conjugal assets does not vest until the dissolution and liquidation of
Macatangay informed them that he was ready to pay and set aside
the conjugal partnership, or after dissolution of the marriage, when it
the amount of P 1,290,000.00 as evidence by Citibank Check No.
is finally determined that, after settlement of conjugal obligations,
278107 as full payment. The couple failed to deliver the property so
there are net assets left which can be divided between the spouses
he sued the spouses.
or their respective heirs.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC):
The Family Code has introduced some changes particularly on the
Petitioner: Macatangay, Respondent: Abalos
aspect of the administration of the conjugal partnership. The new law
Ruling: RTC dismissed the complaint, because the SPA could not
provides that the administration of the conjugal partnership is now a
have authorized Arturo to sell the property to Macatangay as it was
joint undertaking of the husband and the wife. In the event that one
falsified.
spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the
administration of the conjugal partnership, the other spouse may
COURT OF APPEALS (CA): by respondent
assume sole powers of administration. However, the power of
Ruling: CA reversed the decision, ruling the SPA in favor of Arturo,
administration does not include the power to dispose or encumber
assuming it was void, cannot affect the transaction between Esther
property belonging to the conjugal partnership. In all instances, the
and Macatangay. On the other hand, the CA considered the RMOA
present law specifically requires the written consent of the other
executed by Arturo valid to effect the sale of his conjugal share in the
spouse, or authority of the court for the disposition or encumbrance
property.
of conjugal partnership property without which, the disposition or
encumbrance shall be void.
Dissatisfied with the appellate courts disposition, Abalos seeks a
reversal of its disposition.
Inescapably, herein Arturos action for specific performance must fail.
Even on the supposition that the parties only disposed of their
respective shares in the property, the sale, assuming that it exists, is
ISSUE:
still void for as previously stated, the right of the husband or the wife
Whether or not there was a contract of sale between Arturo Abalos
to one-half of the conjugal assets does not vest until the liquidation of
and Galicano Macatangay.
the conjugal partnership. Nemo dat qui non habet. No one can give
Whether or not the subsequent agreement between Galicano
what he has not.
Macatangay and Esther Abalos is binding and that it cured the defect
of the earlier contract between Arturo and Galicano.
The subsequent agreement between Esther and Galicano did not
ratify the earlier transaction between Arturo and Galicano. A void
RULING: contract can never be ratified.
Jose Uy vs. Court of Appeals
GR No. 109557, November 29, 2000

FACTS:
Dr. Ernesto Jardelaza suffered stroke that rendered him comatose.
Gilda, wife of the latter, filed a petition in RTC Iloilo to be allowed as
sole administrator of their conjugal property and be authorized to sell
the same as her husband is physically incapacitated to discharge his
functions. She further contest that such illness of the husband
necessitated expenses that would require her to sell their property in
Lot 4291 and its improvement to meet such necessities. RTC ruled
in favor of Gilda contending that such decision is pursuant to Article
124 of FC and that the proceedings thereon are governed by the
rules on summary proceedings.

The son of the spouses, Teodoro, filed a motion for reconsideration


contending that the petition made by her mother was essentially a
petition for guardianship of the person and properties of his father.

As such it cannot be prosecuted in accordance with the provisions on


summary proceedings instead it should follows the ruled governing
special proceedings in the Revised Rules of Court requiring
procedural due process particularly the need for notice and a hearing
on the merits. He further reiterated that Chapter 2 of the FC comes
under the heading on Separation in Fact Between Husband and
Wife contemplating a situation where both spouses are of disposing
mind. Hence, he argued that this should not be applied in their case.

During the pendency of the motion, Gilda sold the property to her
daughter and son in law. Upon the appeal by Teodoro, CA reversed
the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not Gilda as the wife of a husband who suffered stroke, a
cerebrovascular accident rendering him comatose, without motor and
mental faculties, may assume sole powers of administration of the
conjugal property and dispose a parcel of land with improvements.

RULING:
SC ruled in favor of Teodoro. The rule on summary proceedings
does not apply to cases where the non-consenting spouse is
incapacitated or incompetent to give consent. In this case, trial court
found that subject spouse was incompetent who was in a comatose
condition and with a diagnosis of brain stem infract. Hence, the
proper remedy is a judicial guardianship proceeding under the
Revised Rules of Court. The law provides that wife who assumes
sole powers of administration has the same powers and duties as a
guardian. Consequently, a spouse who desires to sell real property
as administrator of the conjugal property, must observe the
procedure for the sale of the wards estate required of judicial
guardians, and not the summary judicial proceedings under FC. SC
further held that such incapacity of the trial court to provide for an
opportunity to be heard is null and void on the ground of lack of due
process.