PERSONS I

A.Y. 2019-2020 – ATTY. LEGARDA

had her signed an affidavit of consent. However, he only
TOPIC Effect and Application of Laws notarized the document in Zamboanga City four months later.
CASE NO. G.R. No. 178902 - On January 11, 1989 Tarciano executed a deed of absolute sale
CASE NAME Fuentes v Roca in favor of the Fuentes spouses, who immediately began
PONENTE Justice Abad construction on the lot.
PETITIONER Manuel O. Fuentes and Leticia L. Fuentes - A year later, Tarciano passed away, followed by his wife
RESPONDENT Conrado G. Roca, Annabelle R. Joson, Rose Rosario who died nine months afterwards.
Marie R. Cristobal and Pilar Malcampo - Eight years later, the children of Tarciano and Rosario,
TYPE OF Petition for Review collectively known as the Rocas, filed an annulment of sale
CASE and reconveyance of the land against the Fuentes spouses on
MEMBER Jeriko R. Bais the grounds that Rosario did not give her consent to the sale
and her signature was forged.
ISSUE - The Fuentes denied the allegations of the Rocas and presented
1. Is Rosario’s signature on the document of consent to Atty. Plagata who testified that he personally saw Rosario sign
Traciano’s sale of their conjugal land to the Fuentes forged? the affidavit. The Fuentes also pointed out that the claim of
2. Is the Roca’s action for the declaration of nullity of that sale to forgery was personal to Rosario and she alone could invoke it.
the spouses already prescribed? Moreover, they argued that the four-year prescriptive period
3. Is Rosario the only one who could bring the action to annul the for nullifying a sale on ground of fraud has already lapsed.
said sale?
RATIO DECIDENDI
RELEVANT FACTS 1. Is Rosario’s signature forged? YES.
- Tarciano offered to sell his lot in Canelar, Zamboanga City to The Court agrees that Rosario’s signature was forged. Rosario’s
Manuel and Leticia Fuentes. They signed an agreement to sell signature on the affidavit appears heavy, deliberate and forced. Her
that Atty. Plagata dated April 29, 2988, which stated that it specimen signatures on the other hand are lighters stroke and more
will take effect in six months. fluid. The way the letters “R” and “s” were written is also remarkable
- Atty. Plagata, who handled the requirements needed to execute different and is even obvious to the untrained eye.
the sale, said that he went to see Rosario Gabriel Roca, the The Fuentes spouses presented no evidence that Rosario suffered
estranged wife of Tarciano, in one of his trips to Manila and from any illness or disease that accounted for the variance in her
signature when she signed the affidavit or consent. Rosario and

1
 PERSONS I
A.Y. 2019-2020 – ATTY. LEGARDA
Tarciano had also been living separately for 30 years, it would have
been tempting for Tarciano to just forge her signature.
The sale is void without authentic consent.
2. Is the declaration of nullity of that sale to the spouses already
prescribed? NO.
The law that applies to this case is the Family Code and not the
Civil Code since Tarciano sold the conjugal property to the Fuentes
spouses on January 11, 1989, 5 months after the Family Code took
effect. It is also stated in the Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partership on
Gains expressly supersedes Title VI, Book I of the Civil Code.
In Article 124 of the Family Code, it does not provide a period
within which the wife who gave no consent may assail her husband’s
sale of the real property, rather it provides that without the written
consent of the other spouse or a court order allowing the sale, the sale
would be void.
Furthermore, according to Article 1410 of the Civil Code. The
action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract
does not prescribe. Thus, the passage of time did not erode the right of
the Rocas to file an action against the Fuentes spouses for the
annulment of sale and reconveyance of the property.
3. Is Rosario the only one who could bring the action to annul the
sale? NO.
Since the sale was void from the beginning, the land remained to
be a property of Tarciano and Rosario and the ownership of the
property was therefore passed to their heirs, the Rocas.
DISPOSITIVE POSITION
Petition is denied. The Fuentes spouse petition for review of the
CA is denied. CA’s decision is affirmed with modification.
- The deed of sale issued to the Fuentes is declared void.
- Register of Deeds of Zamboanga City is directed to reinstate
Transfer Certificate of Title 3533 to Tarciano T. Roca
- The Rocas are ordered to pay the Fuentes spouses the Php
200,000 that the Fuentes paid Tarciano, with legal interest from
January 11, 1989.
- As per Article 448, the Rocas are further ordered to indemnify
the Fuentes spouses with their expenses for the improvements
made on the land or pay the increase in value that the land has
acquired because of the improvements. Fuentes spouse are
entitled to the right of retention of the land until the indemnity
is made.
- RTC of Zamboanga City is directed to receive evidence and
determine the amount of indemnity that the Fuentes spouses are
entitled to.
DOCTRINE/PRECEDENT
- The sale was void under Article 124 of the Family Code and
not voidable as stated in Article 173 of the New Civil Code
since the sale was executed after the Family Code took effect.
RELEVANT LAWS
Article 124 of the Family Code: “In the event that one spouse is
incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration
of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers
of administration. These powers do not include the powers of
disposition or encumbrance which must have the authority of the
court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of
such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be
void.”