You are on page 1of 1


158040; April 14, 2008; AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. Facts: Spouses Onesiforo and Rosario Alinas (petitioners) separated sometime in 1982. They left behind two lots identified, one with a bodega standing on it and the other with petitioners' house. Respondent Victor Alinas is the brother of petitioner. Petitioners alleged that they entrusted their properties to respondents. Sometime in 1993, petitioners discovered that their two lots were already titled in the name of the respondent spouses. Onesiforos signature appeared in an Absolute Deed of Sale selling one of the lots to respondent spouses. Records also show a notarized document whereby petitioner acknowledged that his brother used his own money to redeem one of the lots mortgaged and foreclosed and thus his brother became the owner. Petitioners filed with the RTC a complaint for the recovery of possession and ownership of their conjugal properties with damages against respondent spouses. Issue: whether or not the sale of conjugal property by the husband petitioner to respondent spouses is valid despite the lack of consent on the part of the wife. Ruling: pursuant to Article 124 of the Family Code and jurisprudence, the sale of petitioners' conjugal property made by petitioner Onesiforo alone is void in its entirety. It should be noted that respondent spouses were well aware that the property is a conjugal property of petitioners. They also knew that the disposition being made by Onesiforo is without the consent of his wife, as they knew that petitioners had separated, and, the sale documents do not bear the signature of petitioner Rosario. The fact that Onesiforo had to execute the Absolute Deed of Sale and a notarized Agreement reveals that they had full knowledge of the severe infirmities of the sale. Such being the case, no injustice is being foisted on respondent spouses as they risked transacting with Onesiforo alone despite their knowledge that the subject property is a conjugal property.