 MENU

PINAY JURIST
BAR EXAM REVIEWERS AND CASE DIGESTS

Architects in Pampanga

Architectural Designs and Services

google.com

— CIVIL LAW —  Search …

CORAZON KO v. VIRGINIA DY ARAMBURO

GR No. 190995, Aug 09, 2017 Co-ownership, HELLO, FUTURE
Sale, Void vs. Voidable Sale, Prescription LAWYER!
Sign up for Pinay Jurist Newsletter
MAY 4 , 2019
Name

FACTS: Email

Corazon is the sister of Virginia’s husband Simeon. Corazon and

By continuing, you accept the
Simeon have another sibling, Augusto, who predeceased them.
privacy policy
Virginia and the heirs of Augusto led a Complaint for Recovery
of Ownership with Declaration of Nullity and/or Alternatively I'M IN!
Reconveyance and Damages with Preliminary Injunction
against Corazon.

The complaint alleged that Virginia and Simeon, together with

CATEGORIES
Corazon and her husband Felix, acquired the subject properties
through a Deed of Cession. Banking

Bar Q & A
They executed a Deed of Cession in favor of Augusto’s heirs,
subject of which is the one-third pro-indiviso portion of the Civil Law
subject properties. Civil Law

However, allegedly with the use of falsi ed documents, Corazon Constitutional Law

was able to have the entire subject properties transferred

Corporation Law
exclusively to her name, depriving her co-owners Virginia and
Augusto’s heirs of their pro-indiviso share, as well as in the Criminal Law
produce of the same.
Election Law

Corazon insisted that only she and Simeon share one-half

Insurance
portion each of the subject properties. She alleged that Simeon
sold and conveyed his entire one-half share in the co-owned Intellectual Property Law
properties in her favor. Hence, Corazon became the sole owner
International Law
thereof and consequently, was able to transfer the titles of the
same to her name.
Labor Law

Law School
During trial, it was established that Simeon and Virginia’s
marriage had been on bad terms and they’ve been living Legal Ethics

separately. The trial court was highly suspicious that Virginia

Mercantile Law
would sign a deed of sale, consenting to her husband’s decision
to sell their conjugal assets to Corazon. Virginia vehemently
Political Law
disowned the signature appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Remedial Law

Without the conformity of Virginia, according to the trial court,

Special Proceedings
Simeon cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the
conjugal partnership. Taxation

The trial court concluded, thus, that the Deed of Absolute Sale,
being falsi ed, is not a valid instrument to transfer the one-
third share of the subject properties.
POLL
The trial court rendered a Decision (1) declaring the plainti s
Virginia as owner of ONE-THIRD (1/3) portion of the subject
property, and the heirs of Augusto as owners of ONE-THIRD
(1/3) portion of the subject property, (2) cancelling the TCT’s in
the name of Corazon, (3) that Corazon reimburse the plainti s
TWO-THIRDS (2/3) of the produce of the properties, subject
matter of this case from the time she appropriated it to herself
in 1974 until such time as the 2/3 share are duly delivered to
them, and (4) to pay damages in favor of the plainti s.

The trial court’s Decision was a rmed in toto by the CA.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not the parties are co-owners of the subject

properties.

(2) Whether or not there was a valid sale between Corazon and
Simeon.
(3) If co-ownership of the subject properties exist, whether or
What subjects are you currently
not the co-owners are entitled to the recovery of their share in
enrolled in?
the subject properties.

I am a Bar Reviewee
 

Political/ Constitutional Law (Public Int'l

RULING:
Law & Election Laws)

The petition is partly meritorious.

Criminal Law (Special Penal Laws)

(1) The law which governs the instant case is the Old Civil Code,
Civil Law (Private Int'l Law)
not the Family Code.

Mercantile Law
Proceeding, thus, to the issue of ownership, We nd no reason
to depart from the RTC’s ruling as a rmed by the CA.
Remedial Law

Augusto’s heirs own one-third pro-indiviso share in the Taxation

subject properties

Labor Law

Respondents, (Augusto’s heirs) claim one-third of the subject

properties. Legal Ethics

Other:
We nd no cogent reason to depart from the the courts a quo‘s
ndings as to the existence and e ectivity of the Deed of
Vote
Cession giving rights to Augusto’s children over the one-third
portion of the subject property.  View Results Crowdsignal.com

Simeon’s heirs, which include Virginia, also own one-third

pro-indiviso share in the subject properties

META
Respondent Virginia’s claim as to the other one-third portion of
Register
the subject properties is ultimately anchored upon the Deed of
Cession. Log in

Entries feed
We uphold the courts a quo‘s conclusion that one-third portion
of the subject properties is indeed part of Simeon and Virginia’s
Comments feed
conjugal properties.
WordPress.org

In this case, the subject properties, having been acquired during

the marriage, are still presumed to belong to Simeon and
Virginia’s conjugal properties.

(2) We now proceed to determine the validity of the Deed of

Absolute Sale executed by Simeon in favor of Corazon, covering
one-half of the subject properties which was his purported
share.

As for the one-third portion of the subject properties pertaining

to Augusto’s heirs, We are one with the CA in ruling that the
Deed of Absolute Sale is void as the said portion is owned by
Augusto’s heirs as above-discussed and thus, Simeon had no
right to sell the same.
It is basic that the object of a valid sales contract must be owned
by the seller. Nemo dat quod non habet, as an ancient Latin
maxim says. One cannot give what one does not have.

However, as to the one-third portion commonly-owned by

Spouses Simeon and Virginia, Simeon’s alienation of the same
through sale without Virginia’s conformity is merely voidable.

Article 166 of the Old Civil Code explicitly requires the consent
of the wife before the husband may alienate or encumber any
real property of the conjugal partnership except when there is a
showing that the wife is incapacitated, under civil interdiction,
or in like situations.

Accordingly, without Virginia’s conformity, the Deed of

Absolute Sale between Simeon and Corazon purportedly
covering one-half of the subject properties is voidable.

(3)

For the share of Augusto’s heirs, the sale of the same is void as
the object of such sale, not being owned by the seller, did not
exist at the time of the transaction. Being a void contract, thus,
the CA correctly ruled that the action to impugn the sale of the
same is imprescriptible.

As for the share pertaining to Simeon and Virginia, We must

emphasize that the governing law in this case is the Old Civil
Code. Under the said law, while the husband is prohibited from
selling the commonly-owned real property without his wife’s
consent, still, such sale is not void but merely voidable. Article
173 thereof gave Virginia the right to have the sale annulled
during the marriage within ten years from the date of the sale.
Failing in that, she or her heirs may demand, after dissolution
of the marriage, only the value of the property that Simeon
erroneously sold.

As far as Virginia is concerned, the Old Civil Code applies, and

the CA erred in ruling that the subject Deed of Absolute Sale is
void for the lack of the wife’s conformity thereto. The 10-year
prescriptive period under Article 173 of the Old Civil Code should
be applied in this case.

SUMMARY OF THE RULING:

In ne, while We uphold the courts a quo‘s ndings that the

parties herein are co-owners of the subject properties.

We reverse and set aside the said courts’ ruling, ordering the
cancellation of titles of the entire subject properties and the
transfer of the two-thirds portion of the same to the
respondents.
 While Augusto’s heirs are entitled to the recovery of their share
in the subject properties, Virginia is only entitled to demand the
value of her share therefrom pursuant to Article 173 of the Old
Civil Code.

 MAY 4, 2019  PINAYJURIST  CIVIL LAW

 CO-OWNERSHIP, PRESCRIPTION, SALE

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required elds are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

POST COMMENT

PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST

RUKS KONSULT AND BENJAMIN PALAGANAS vs.

CONSTRUCTION v. ADWORLD ERNESTO PALAGANAS G.R. No.
SIGN AND ADVERTISING 169144 January 26, 2011 Probate of
CORPORATION AND a foreign will
TRANSWORLD MEDIA ADS, INC.
G.R. No. 204866 January 21, 2015
Article 2194 of the Civil Code,
Damages, Negligence, Joint
Tortfeasors
HELLO FUTURE LAWYER!
Subscribe to Pinay Jurist Newsletter
Name

Email

By continuing, you accept the privacy policy

I'M IN!

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Anissa by AlienWP.