Fuentes v. Roca (G.R. No. 178902; April 21, 2010)
CASE DIGEST: MANUEL O. FUENTES and LETICIA L. FUENTES, Petitioners, vs. CONRADO G. ROCA, ANNABELLE R. JOSON, ROSE MARIE R. CRISTOBAL and PILAR MALCAMPO, Respondents.
NOTE: A forged affidavit of consent is void. Thus, anything based on such instrument is likewise void.
The husband of a wife who no longer lives with him sold a conjugal property without her consent as the affidavit of consent was forged. After their death, their children questioned the sale. It must be emphasized that their marriage was contracted under the Civil Code, but the sale was executed under the Family Code. Ruling that the Family Code applies, the High Court held that the sale could be made by the husband without the consent of the wife.
NOTE: Even if the marriage took place under the Civil, the validity of sales of community or conjugal property is still governed by the Family Code.
When the spouses got married, the Civil Code put in place the system of conjugal partnership of gains on their property relations. While its Article 165 made the husband the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership, Article 166 prohibited him from selling commonly owned real property without his wife’s consent. Still, if he sold the same without his wife’s consent, the sale is not void but merely voidable. Article 173 gave the wife 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 the husband fraudulently sold.The Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. Its Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains expressly superseded Title VI, Book I of the Civil Code on Property Relations Between Husband and Wife. The Family Code provisions were also made to apply to already existing conjugal partnerships without prejudice to vested rights. Thus:
Art. 105. x x x The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains already established between spouses before the effectivity of this Code, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws, as provided in Article 256. (n)
NOTE: A forged affidavit of consent is void. Thus, anything based on such instrument is likewise void.
The husband of a wife who no longer lives with him sold a conjugal property without her consent as the affidavit of consent was forged. After their death, their children questioned the sale. It must be emphasized that their marriage was contracted under the Civil Code, but the sale was executed under the Family Code. Ruling that the Family Code applies, the High Court held that the sale could be made by the husband without the consent of the wife.
NOTE: Even if the marriage took place under the Civil, the validity of sales of community or conjugal property is still governed by the Family Code.
When the spouses got married, the Civil Code put in place the system of conjugal partnership of gains on their property relations. While its Article 165 made the husband the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership, Article 166 prohibited him from selling commonly owned real property without his wife’s consent. Still, if he sold the same without his wife’s consent, the sale is not void but merely voidable. Article 173 gave the wife 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 the husband fraudulently sold.The Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. Its Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains expressly superseded Title VI, Book I of the Civil Code on Property Relations Between Husband and Wife. The Family Code provisions were also made to apply to already existing conjugal partnerships without prejudice to vested rights. Thus: