This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SPOUSES RAUL and ANNA GERONIMO, Plaintiffs
CIVIL CASE NO: For: Declaration of of Sale etc.
PETER PASCUAL Defendant X==================================/
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFFS ==========================
Plaintiffs, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully state and submit their memorandum in the aboveentitled case:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff, Anna Geronimo, is married to Raul Geronimo. They got married in 2006. Before their marriage, plaintiff’s husband bought a one-bedroom condominium unit. He purchased the condominium unit in 2001.
Geronimo mentioned of this plan to herein defendant. at the time she left for the United States. While she was there in the U. Geronimo returned from the United States and immediately called the defendant Mr. Mr.. Pascual. In 2009. who was a close friend of theirs in one of their weekend dinners. the plaintiff and her husband (hereafter to be referred to as the Spouses Geronimo) have been living in this condominium unit. Pascual was interested in purchasing the condominium unit should the spouses In the meantime.2 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs Since they got married in 2006. but her husband told her that he already signed the deed of sale and that In September 2009. Ms. Ms. no deed of sale was executed between her and her husband and the defendant Mr. Pascual at P2 million. Geronimo left for the United States. they considered selling their condominium unit to make room for the nanny and all the baby stuff that they may need. In 2008. decide to sell it. when Ms. she decided not to sell the condominum unit anymore realizing that it would be better to keep it in the meantime as an investment. However. Pascual insisted that the sale had already been . sometime in May 2009.S. Pascual to inform him of her decision not to sell anymore the unit and offered to return the purchase price which her husband received from him (defendant). Ms. Peter Pascual (Mr. Ms. But Mr. Pascual hereafter). Geronimo learned that she was having a baby. Geronimo offered to sell the unit to Mr. She then called her husband to inform him of his decision he already had the manager’s check in his possession.
Thus: . Does the condominium unit form part of the conjugal properties of the spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo? b. While it may true that Raul acquired the unit in 2001 while he was still single. without the consent of plaintiff Anna Geronimo who is his (Raul) wife? c.3 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs consummated and refused to accept the return of the purchase price. Pascual? DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS The condominium unit form part of the community properties of the Spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo 1. it is now jointly owned by the plaintiff spouses because Article 91 of the Family Code provides that the community property shall consist of all property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Pascual. Was the sale consummated between plaintiff and her husband and the herein defendant Mr. ISSUES The following are the relevant issues in this case: a. 2. May Raul Geronimo validly sell the condominium unit to the defendant. The condominium unit form part of the community properties of the spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo. Mr.
which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision. community property shall consist of all property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Plaintiff’s husband-Raul Geronimo. (197a) (underscoring supplied) 3.could not validly sell the condominium unit without first securing the consent of plaintiff. There is no valid sale in this instance because Raul Geronimo sold the unit-an absolute community propertywithout first securing the consent of plaintiff Ana Geronimo. considering that he acquired the same in 2001 while he was then single. Artile 96 of the Family Code is very explicit in stating that the administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses exclusively. as defined. In thus bringing the condominium unit to the marriage. Art. 5.4 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs Art. While initially owned by the plaintiff’s husband. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage settlements. 4. it form part of the community property of the spouses because. it now forms part of the absolute community property of the spouses. Raul. 96. subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy. The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement. 91. . the husband's decision shall prevail. the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.
therefore. the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. The law. the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person. If a spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the community properties. . 8. In the absence of such authority or consent. 9. In the absence of such authority or consent. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. The transaction in this case-which is a sale transaction-and being entered solely by the husband without the plaintiff’s consent is void.5 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties. could not be any clearer. However. (206a) (underscoring supplied) 6. the disposition or encumbrance such as the sale of the condominium unit in this case shall be void. However. the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. 7. this assumption of the sole power to administer do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration.
there was no perfected contract of sale to speak of. her written consent to the sale is required by law for its validity. Significantly. No.6 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs 10. 147978 January 23. Respondent Norma may have been aware of the negotiations for the sale of their conjugal properties. her written consent to the sale is required by law for its validity. The Supreme Court in Jader-Manalo had occasion to state that even if the wife actively participated in negotiating the sale of the subject properties therein. otherwise. Even if plaintiff Ms. 11. However. the consent of both husband and wife must concur. 12. the disposition is void. Geronimo initially was the one who broached the idea of selling the property to Mr.R. “The properties subject of the contracts in this case were conjugal. being merely aware of a transaction is not consent” (underscoring supplied) . petitioner herself admits that Norma refused to sign the contracts to sell. such conduct could and should not be construed as consent to the sale transaction. Even granting that respondent Norma actively participated in negotiating for the sale of the subject properties. Respondent Norma Camaisa admittedly did not give her written consent to the sale. the Supreme Court ruled that the law requires that the disposition of a conjugal property by the husband as administrator in appropriate cases require the written consent of the wife. Camaisa G. At this point. which she denied. In Jader-Manalo vs. hence. Pascual. for the contracts to sell to be effective. 2002.
Pascual would strenuously contend that plaintiff Anna Geronimo actually knew of the sale (and in fact. defendant Mr. The sale between plaintiff and husband and the defendant was not perfected. Pascual’s acceptance of plaintiff spouses’ offer was not definite. 16. defendant Mr. There was. 15.7 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs 13. When told that plaintiffs spouses were now selling their condo unit and offered the price of P2 million. There is no contract when there is no consent of the contracting parties. was even the one who negotiated the sale). even if required by law to validate the sale. Article 1319 provides that consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. still that is not consent that the law requires to make the transaction valid. no definite and absolute acceptance (of the offer) BEFORE plaintiff left for the United States. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. Mere knowledge of the transaction is not the consent Thus. 17. . in effect. In this case. The sale between plaintiff and husband and the defendant was not perfected 14. defendant Pascual MERELY told them (plaintiff) that he would call back once the deed of sale and manager’s check were ready.
April 30. (underscoring supplied) RELIEFS .R. I called Mr. Since he was still interested in buying it. 18. Unless the offeror knows of the acceptance. plaintiff Anna Geronimo was no longer around. As was held in Malbaroa vs. as there was no consent from plaintiff anymore when the acceptance of the offer was made by defendant Pascual. 19. The offeror may withdraw its offer and revoke the same before acceptance thereof by the offeree. 2003: The acceptance of an offer must be made known to the offeror. there is no meeting of the minds of the parties. Pascual and informed him that we finally found a house. Knowledge by the husband alone of defendant’s acceptance of the offer would not suffice. When she (Anna Geronimo) knew of the supposed acceptance (of the offer). The contract is perfected only from the time an acceptance of an offer is made known to the offeror. 125761. I told him that we were now selling our condo unit. 20. He said that he will call back once the deed of sale and manager’s check were ready. At the time that defendant Pascual called back to relay his acceptance of the offer. I offered it to him for P2 million.8 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs Q: When did the actual negotiations for the sale of the condo unit start? A: In April 2009. no real concurrence of offer and acceptance. she had by then already withdrew the offer. Court of Appeals G. No.
. Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. plaintiff respectfully prays that the sale be declared void. foregoing premises considered.9 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs WHEREFORE.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?