The disposition or encumbrance of conjugal properties by one spouse must have the consent of the other spouse, or if the latter is incapacitated, the authority of the court. Without such consent or authority, the disposition or encumbrance is void. This is the main rule applied in this case. It also illustrates the rule that anyone who does not act with justice, observe honesty and good faith in the exercise of his/her legal rights is liable for damages caused by those acts.
This is the case of Paul and Vicky, husband and wife with four children. When they got married Paul already owned a parcel of land (Lot 8) solely registered in his name under TCT No. 26471. In 1982 the spouses purchased the parcel of land (Lot 7) adjacent to Paul’s property with an area of 555 square meters and covered by TCT 88674. Then they put up their conjugal house on both lots with the savings they accumulated through their joint efforts and with the proceeds of the loan from a bank. Later on they also introduced improvements thereon including a poultry house and an annex.
In 1991, the couple’s relationship turned sour when Paul got a mistress and neglected his family. Vicky was thus forced to sell or mortgage some of their movables to support the family and the studies of the children. On the other hand Paul offered to sell their house and the two lots on which it stood to the spouses Willy and Pat without even consulting or informing Vicky. So when Vicky learned about it she objected and informed the couple Pat and Willy of her objections.
Nevertheless, Paul still proceeded with the sale to Pat and Willy who accepted his offer despite Vicky’s objections. So on June 21, 1991, Paul executed a Deed of Sale in favor of Pat and Willy without Vicky’s consent and signature over her name. Then on July 5, 1991 when Vicky was out of the house and the four children were in school, Paul, acting in connivance with spouses Pat and Willy began transferring all the belongings of Vicky and her children to an apartment.
When Vicky and her daughter came home later, they were stopped from entering. So they just waited at the gate until evening under the rain. They asked for police assistance but to no avail allegedly because it was purely a family matter.
Thus Vicky and her children filed a complaint before the RTC for Annulment of Sale, Specific Performance, Damages and Attorney’s fees with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against Paul and the spouses Pat and Willy. Vicky claimed that the sale of Lot 7 and the house erected thereon which were conjugal properties was null and void because it was without her consent. She also claimed that they are entitled to damages because of the manner they were evicted from their own conjugal home. Were Vicky and her children correct?
Yes. Lot 7 covered by TCT 88674 was acquired in 1982 during the marriage of Paul and Vicky. Hence it is presumed to belong to their conjugal partnership. No clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence have been presented to overcome said presumption. Likewise the house built thereon is conjugal property having been constructed through the joint efforts of Vicky and Paul who even obtained a loan from a bank. Under Article 124 of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988, the sale of said properties on June 21, 1991 is void because it is done without the consent of both husband and wife.
The manner by which Vicky and her children were removed from their family home was also condemnable. While Vicky was out and her children were in school, Paul, acting in connivance with the spouses Pat and Willy surreptitiously transferred all their personal belongings to another place. Then they were not allowed to enter their rightful home or family abode despite their impassioned pleas. Hence they are entitled to award for damages. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damages caused.
Hence the sale of lot 7 in favor of Pat and Willy together with the house thereon is declared null and void and Paul should return the price paid for them to Pat and Willy while the latter should re-convey the lot and house to spouses Vicky and Paul. The spouses Pat and Willy as well as Paul should also jointly and severally pay Vicky P100,000 and her four children P50,000 each as moral damages as well as P10,000 exemplary damages (Ravina vs. Villa Abrille, G.R. 160708, October 16, 2009).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net