heirs, DR. NATIVIDAD A. TULIAO, CORAZON A. In Felipe v. Heirs of Aldon, et al. the legal effect of a JALECO and LILIA A. OLAYON, petitioners, vs. sale of conjugal properties by the wife without the SPOUSES ANTONIO PADUA and EUGENIA consent of the husband was clarified, to wit: PADUA, respondents. G.R. No. 165420. June 30, 2005 In the instant case, Gimena, e.a.funa the wife, sold lands belonging to the conjugal partnership FACTS without the consent of the husband and the sale is not In April 1987, Ainza and her daughter covered by the phrase except Eugenia, married to Antonio, orally agreed that in cases provided by law. Ainza pay P100k in exchange for half of the portion of Eugenia’s undivided conjugal property (a lot The view that the contract located in QC). No Deed of Absolute Sale was made by Gimena is a voidable executed. There was physical delivery of the land contract is supported by the through Concepcion’s other daughter (Natividad) legal provision that contracts acting as atty-in-fact. Concepcion thereafter allowed entered by the husband Natividad and her husband occupy the purchased without the consent of the wife portion of the land. when such consent is required, are annullable at her instance In 1994, Antonio caused the division of the during the marriage and within lot into three (two were occupied by the spouses), ten years from the transaction necessarily displacing Natividad. He also had each questioned. (Art. 173, Civil subdivision titled. Antonio requested Natividad to Code). vacate the premises. Antonio averred that his wife only admitted of selling 1/3 of the property to The consent of both Eugenia and Antonio is Concepcion for which a receipt was issued signed necessary for the sale of the conjugal property to be by Concepcion. The RTC ruled in favor of valid. Antonios consent cannot be presumed. Except Concepcion. The CA reversed the RTC ruling. for the self-serving testimony of petitioner Natividad, Applying Article 124 of the Family Code, the Court of there is no evidence that Antonio participated or Appeals ruled that since the subject property is consented to the sale of the conjugal property. conjugal, the written consent of Antonio must be Eugenia alone is incapable of giving consent to the obtained for the sale to be valid. contract. Therefore, in the absence of Antonios consent, the disposition made by Eugenia is ISSUE voidable.
Whether or not the contract of sale between
Ainza and Eugenia is valid.
RULING
It is undisputed that the subject property was
conjugal and sold by Eugenia in April 1987 or prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, Article 254 of which repealed Title V, Book I of the Civil Code provisions on the property relations between husband and wife. However, Article 256 thereof limited its retroactive effect only to cases where it would not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. In the case at bar, vested rights of Concepcion will be impaired or prejudiced by the application of the Family Code; hence, the provisions of the Civil Code should be applied.