Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Spouses ANTONIO and LUZVIMINDA GUIANG, Petitioners, vs.

 COURT OF APPEALS
and GILDA COPUZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 125172 | June 26, 1998
[Parties to a contract of sale: Spouses]
By: John Arjay Onia
FACTS:
Spouses Gilda Corpuz and Judie Corpuz bought a parcel of land (lot 9, block 8) from Manuel
Callejo, through a conditional Deed of Sale. Spouses Corpuz then sold one half of their lot to
petitioners. They then occupied the lot and built their house. Private respondent went to Manila
to look for work abroad. Respondents-spouses daughter heard that her father (Judie Corpuz) will
sell the remaining half of the lot and their house built on the land. Their daughter then sent a
letter to private respondent (Gilda Corpuz) about the sale, in which the latter did not consent to.
Their daughter however did not inform her father (Judie Corpuz) about her mother’s objection,
instead she informed petitioner-spouses. Judie Corpuz pushed through with the sale to
Luzviminda Guiang (petitioner) through a document (Deed of Transfer of Rights) of the
remaining portion of the lot. Four days after the sale, Luzviminda Guiang executed another
agreement with the widow of the original owner of the land (Manuela Callejo). When private
respondent went back home, she gathered her children and stayed in their house. Plaintiff
complained against private respondent for trespassing before the barangay authorities in which
they signed a document “amicable settlement”, in which it stated that private respondent and her
children vacate the house. Private respondent then requested for the annulment of the settlement
but was disregarded, thus continuing to stay on the house.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the assailed Deed of Transfer of Rights was validly executed.
RULING:
The Deed of Transfer of Rights was void, thus not validly executed. The contract falls well
within the ambit of Article 124 of the Family Code. The disposition was void. There was no
consent of the wife to sell their conjugal property nor the authority of the court. However
according to Article 166 of the Civil Code, absent of such consent is merely voidable. In relation
to Article 173 of the Civil Code, a prescriptive period of 10 years is stipulated to annul the
alienation by the offended spouse. This provision was not carried over to the Family Code, thus
any alienation after the Family Code took effect is null and void. Ergo, being the assailed land, a
conjugal property, consent of the wife and the husband must be vital in a valid contract of sale as
premised together with the concurrence of the cause and object, the first element being
indubitably inexistent in the case at bar.
TAKE-AWAY: The sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the husband and
the wife. The absence of the consent of one renders the sale null and void, while the vitiation
thereof makes it merely voidable. Only in the latter case can ratification cure the defect.

Вам также может понравиться