I.

BA FINANCE VS CA

Facts: Augusto Yulo secured a loan from BA finance corporation as

evidenced by a promissory note he signed in his own behalf and as a

representative of A & L Industries. A. Yulo presented an alleged SPA

executed by his wife whose name the said business is registered, purportedly

authorizing Augusto to procure the loan. 2 months prior to the loan, Augusto

had already left Lily and their children and abandoned their conjugal home.

Augusto failed to pay the debt.

The petitioner filed its amended complaint against the spouses

Augusto and Lily on the basis of promissory note. It also prayed for the

issuance of a writ of attachment of the properties of A & L industries.

Lily filed her answer with counterclaim alleging that although Augusto

and she are husband and wife, the former had abandoned her before the filing

of the complainant and that her signature in the special power of attorney was

forged.

Issue: Is A & L part of the conjugal partnership as it was established

during the marriage although registered as single proprietorship registered

under the name of Lily Yulo alone?

Held: Yes. There is no dispute that the properties were established

during the marriage of Augusto and Lily and is therefore presumed conjugal.

However for the said property to be liable, the obligation contracted by the

husband must have redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. The

obligation which the petitioner is seeking to enforce against the conjugal

property managed by Lily was undoubtedly contracted by Augusto for his

own benefit because at the time he incurred the loan, he already left the

conjugal home without just cause.

II.

Heirs of Ayuste v CA

Note: During the court proceedings Christina Ayuste died, the claim not

having been extinguished by her death the Court ordered for the substitution

of her heirs.

The case is about the spouses Christina and Rafael Ayuste who was

originally residing at Manila but operating a machine shop business at Lucena

City. In order to manage the business , the couple purchased an area of 180

square meters on which a residential house was built for temporary residence

of Rafael who was the managing spouse. February 27, 1987 a deed of absolute

sale was executed by Rafael Ayuste in favor of Viena Malabonga for purpose

of selling the parcel of land worth 40 000 php. On page 2 of this deed appears

the signature of Christina Ayuste below the phrase “ with my conformity”. It

was only after Rafael’s death when Christina discovered that the title to the

land in Lucena was missing in the course of doing the inventory of their

properties. She discovered that the said property was sold in favor of Viena

Malabonga. She prayed that the deed of absolute sale be declare null and void

on grounds that the property was sold without her consent and with her

signature forged.

Issue : Whether or not petitioners are entitled to the annulment of the contract

of sale entered into by Rafael Ayuste without the consent of Christina Ayuste.

HELD:

The petitioners are not entitled to the annulment of the contract of sale

entered into by Rafael Ayuste without the consent of Christina Ayuste.

The Supreme Court said that there is no ambiguity in the wording of

the law.  A sale of real property of the conjugal partnership made by the

husband without the consent of his wife is voidable [14]  The action for

annulment must be brought during the marriage and within ten years

from the questioned transaction by the wife.[15] Where the law speaks in

clear and categorical languange, there is no room for interpretation – there is

room only for application.[16]

In the present case, the deed of sale was executed on February 27,

1987.  Rafael Ayuste died on October 13, 1989.  However, it was only on

March 2, 1990 that Christina Ayuste filed her complaint with the lower court

asking for the annulment of the sale.  Although the action was filed within

ten years from the questioned transaction, it was not brought during the

existence of the marriage which was dissolved upon the death of Rafael

Ayuste in 1989.[17] Clearly, the action for annulment filed by Christina Ayuste

was barred for having been filed out of time.

The fact that Christina Ayuste only learned of the sale after the death of

her husband is not material.  We affirm public respondent’s ruling that

registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds constitutes a notice to the

whole world.[18] Precisely, the purpose of the legislature in providing a system

of registration is to afford a means of publicity so that persons dealing with

real property may search the records and thereby acquire security against

instruments the execution of which have not been revealed to them.[19] Since

the deed of sale was registered on March 5, 1987, Christina Ayuste is

presumed to have constructive notice of the sale from such date.

III.

HEIRS OF REYES VS MIJARES

Facts: Vincente and Ignacia were married in 1960 but had been

separated de facto since 1974. Vicente sold a lot to respondent spouses

Mijares for 40K. As a consequence thereof, the previous title of the subject lot

was cancelled and replaced by the name of the new owners. Ignacia found out

that Vicente filed a petition for administration and appointment of guardian

before MeTC. Vicente misrepresented that his wife, Ignacia died on 1982.

Ignacia through her counsel sent a letter to respondent spouses

demanding the return of ½ share in the lot. Later on, filed for the annulment of

the sale.

The respondent spouses claimed that they are purchasers in good faith

and that the sale was valid because it was duly approved by the court.

Issue: What is the status of the sale of lot to respondents?

Held: Articles 166 and 173 of the Civil Code are the governing laws at

the time the assailed sale was contracted.

Art. 166- Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a

spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium the

husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal

property without the wife’s consent.

Art. 173- The wife, may during the marriage and within 10 years from

the transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of

the husband entered into without the consent.

Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, the husband could not alienate or

encumber any conjugal real property w/o the consent, express or implied of

the wife, otherwise the contract is voidable.

In the case at bar, there is no dispute that Lot No. 4349-B is a conjugal

property having been purchased using the conjugal funds of the spouses

during the subsistence of their marriage.

In Bucoy v. Paulino,[36] a case involving the annulment of sale with

assumption of mortgages executed by the husband without the consent of the

wife, it was held that the alienation or encumbrance must be annulled in its

entirety and not only insofar as the share of the wife in the conjugal property

is concerned. Although the transaction in the said case was declared void and

not merely voidable, the rationale for the annulment of the whole transaction

is the same thus –

The plain meaning attached to the plain language of the law is that the

contract, in its entirety, executed by the husband without the wife's consent,

may be annulled by the wife. Had Congress intended to limit such annulment

in so far as the contract shall “prejudice” the wife, such limitation should have

been spelled out in the statute. It is not the legitimate concern of this Court to

recast the law. As Mr. Justice Jose B. L. Reyes of this Court and Judge

Ricardo C. Puno of the Court of First Instance correctly stated, “[t]he rule (in

the first sentence of Article 173) revokes Baello vs. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 213

and Coque vs. Navas Sioca, 45 Phil. 430,” in which cases annulment was held

to refer only to the extent of the one-half interest of the wife.

IV.

PELAYO VS PEREZ

Facts: Pelayo conveyed a property to respondent Perez in

consideration of the latter’s act of driving away the illegal-occupants of

Pelayo’s property. In the deed of sale, the wife of Pelayo signed only at the 3 rd

page as a witness to the execution of the deed, of which Perez’ application for

the registration of the deed with the Office of RoD was denied. Perez,

thereupon asked Loreza to sign on the 1st and 2nd pages of the deed but she

refused, hence, he instituted an action for specific performance.

Issue: Is the signing of the wife as witness constitutes as a valid

consent of the deed of sale?

Held: The SC agree with the ruling of the CA that Loreza by affixing

her signature to the Deed of Sale on the space provided for witness is deemed

to have given her implied consent to the contract sale.

Sale is a consensual contract that is perfected by a mere consent which

may either be expressed or implied. A wife’s consent to the husband’s

disposition of conjugal propert does not always have to be explicit or set forth

in any particular document, so lonf as it is given.

In the presnt case, although it appears on the face of the deed of sale

that Loreza signed only as an instrumental witness, circumstances leading to

the execution of the said point to the fact that Loreza was fully aware of the

sale of their conjugal property and consented to the sale.

V.

AGUETE VS PNB

Facts: Joe A. Ros obtained a loan of 115K from PNB Laoag Branch

and as a security for the loan plaintiff-appellee executed a real estate mortgage

involving a parcel of land. Upon maturity, the loan remains outstanding. PNB

initiated extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property.

Claiming that Estrella Aguete has no knowledge of the loan obtained

by her husband nor she consented to the mortgage instituted on the conjugal

property, she filed a complaint to annul the proceeding pertaining to the

mortgage, sale and consolidation of the property. Interposing that her

signature was forged and the loan did not redound to the benefit of the family.

Held: Conjugal partnership is still liable because the loan proceeds

redounded to the benefit of the family as it was used for the expansion of the

family’s business.

The husband cannot alienate or encumber any conjugal property w/o

the consent express or implied if the wife. Should the husband do so, the

contract is voidable. Art. 173 of CC allows Aguete to question Ros’

encumbrance of the subject property. However, the same article does not

guarantee that the courts will declare the annulment of the contract. It will be

declared only upon a finding that the wife did not give her consent.

VI.

DE LEON VS DE LEON

Facts: Bonifacion de Leon, single and PHHC entered into a

conditional contract to sell for the purchase on installment of 191.30sqm lot in

QC. Subsequently, Bonifacio married Anita. At the full payment of the cost

price, PHHC executed a final deed of sale in favor of Bonifacio. The tct was

issued in Bonifacio’s name and was stated that he is single. Bonifacio,

thereafter sold the lot to his sister Lita and husband Rio Tarrosa. However,

Anita de Leon was not signatory of the deed of sale executed.

Bonifacio died and months later following his death, the spouses

Tarrosa registered their deed of sale and the first title cancelled.

Daniel and Vilma de Leon filed a Notice of Adverse Claim to protect

their rights over the property. Anita, Vilma and Daniel filed a reconveyance

suit before the RTC and alleged that fraud attended the execution of the deed

of sale to the Tarrosas and that Bonifacio was still the owner of his property

by his subsequent acts of executing a real estate mortgage over the same

property in favor of another spouse, which has been nullified by rtc.

The tarrosas answered that the property was boni exclusive property as

he was single when he acquired it from phhc and that they were not aware of

the supposedmarriage at the time of execution of dos.

Issue: whether the property purchased on installment by Boni before

marriage although some installments were paid during marriage is conjugal?

Held: the full payment of the conditional contract was during the

marriage, thus ownership was transferred only during the marriage. Art 160 of

cc the governing provision in effect at the time of boni and anita married, all

property of the marriage is presumed to belong to conjugal partnership unless

it is proved that it pertains exclusively.

VII.

HEIRS OF HERNANDEZ VS MINGOA

Facts: Hernandez, Sr. married to Sergia, was awarded a piece of real

property by PHHC by way of salary deduction. After full payment, a TCT was

issued to the spouses. It bears a restriction of any unauthorized sale to 3 rd

person w/in a certain period (1year).

The heirs learned after Hernandez death in 1983, the title was

cancelled in 1982, a year before his death in favor of respondents. Apparently,

Hernandez was unable to fully pay the purchase price so to prevent forfeiture

of his right to purchase; Hernandez sold to Dolores Camisura his right in the

said property. To circumvent the prohibitiom, the spouses Hernandez

executed an irrevocable spa to enable Dolores to sell the lot to plaridel mingoa

w/0 the need of requiring Hernandez to sign a deed of conveyance. Plaridel

sold the lot to his daughter who at the time is 20y.o. it was alleged that

sergia’s signature on the spa was falsified.

On the other hands, the defendants claimed that they have long been

paying the taxed religiously and have made improvements including the

establishment of residential home where they lived.

Issue: whether there was a valid alienation involving the subject

property

Held: in sum, the rights and interests of the spouses Hernandez over

the subject property were validly transferred to respondent Dolores camisura.

Since the sale of conjugal property by Hernandez sr was w/o the consent of

his wife, the same is voidable.

Considering that sergia failed to exercise her right to ask for

annulment of the sale w/in the prescribed period, she is now barred from

questioning the validity thereof. And more so, she is precluded from assailing

the validity of the subsequent transfers from Camisura to Plaridel, and Plaridel

to Melanie Mingoa.

“Discipline is the bridge between goals and accomplishment”.

Jim Rohn