You are on page 1of 9

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF____ __JUDICIAL REGION Branch__

SPOUSES RAUL and ANNA GERONIMO, Plaintiffs

-versusNullity

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.

2 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs Since they got married in 2006. the plaintiff and her husband (hereafter to be referred to as the Spouses Geronimo) have been living in this condominium unit. In 2008. Ms. but her husband told her that he already signed the deed of sale and that In September 2009. who was a close friend of theirs in one of their weekend dinners. But Mr. Pascual insisted that the sale had already been . While she was there in the U. Ms. Ms. Geronimo learned that she was having a baby. at the time she left for the United States. she decided not to sell the condominum unit anymore realizing that it would be better to keep it in the meantime as an investment. 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). Geronimo left for the United States. when Ms. Peter Pascual (Mr. Pascual.S. Ms. She then called her husband to inform him of his decision he already had the manager’s check in his possession. In 2009. However. Pascual at P2 million. sometime in May 2009. Geronimo offered to sell the unit to Mr. no deed of sale was executed between her and her husband and the defendant Mr.. Geronimo mentioned of this plan to herein defendant. they considered selling their condominium unit to make room for the nanny and all the baby stuff that they may need. Geronimo returned from the United States and immediately called the defendant Mr. Pascual hereafter). decide to sell it. Mr. Pascual was interested in purchasing the condominium unit should the spouses In the meantime.

2. While it may true that Raul acquired the unit in 2001 while he was still single. Pascual? DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS The condominium unit form part of the community properties of the Spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo 1. Pascual. Does the condominium unit form part of the conjugal properties of the spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo? b. The condominium unit form part of the community properties of the spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo. 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. Thus: . May Raul Geronimo validly sell the condominium unit to the defendant. ISSUES The following are the relevant issues in this case: a. 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. Mr. Was the sale consummated between plaintiff and her husband and the herein defendant Mr.

91. While initially owned by the plaintiff’s husband. it form part of the community property of the spouses because. as defined. which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.4 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs Art. 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. 5. 96. it now forms part of the absolute community property of the spouses. 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. (197a) (underscoring supplied) 3. Raul. Plaintiff’s husband-Raul Geronimo. . considering that he acquired the same in 2001 while he was then single. In thus bringing the condominium unit to the marriage. subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy. 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. community property shall consist of all property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage. 4.could not validly sell the condominium unit without first securing the consent of plaintiff. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage settlements. Art. The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement.

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. 7. therefore. However. (206a) (underscoring supplied) 6. However. the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. In the absence of such authority or consent. 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 disposition or encumbrance shall be void. If a spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the community properties. could not be any clearer.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. . 8. the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person. In the absence of such authority or consent. the disposition or encumbrance such as the sale of the condominium unit in this case shall be void. the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. The law. The transaction in this case-which is a sale transaction-and being entered solely by the husband without the plaintiff’s consent is void. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. 9.

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. 2002. petitioner herself admits that Norma refused to sign the contracts to sell. her written consent to the sale is required by law for its validity. for the contracts to sell to be effective. the consent of both husband and wife must concur. No. being merely aware of a transaction is not consent” (underscoring supplied) . Respondent Norma Camaisa admittedly did not give her written consent to the sale. which she denied. Camaisa G. hence. 147978 January 23. However. 11. At this point. “The properties subject of the contracts in this case were conjugal. there was no perfected contract of sale to speak of. such conduct could and should not be construed as consent to the sale transaction. Geronimo initially was the one who broached the idea of selling the property to Mr. her written consent to the sale is required by law for its validity. Even if plaintiff Ms. Even granting that respondent Norma actively participated in negotiating for the sale of the subject properties. 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. 12. In Jader-Manalo vs. Significantly. Respondent Norma may have been aware of the negotiations for the sale of their conjugal properties.6 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs 10. the disposition is void. Pascual.R. otherwise.

In this case. Pascual’s acceptance of plaintiff spouses’ offer was not definite. 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. 17. 16. . The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. was even the one who negotiated the sale). The sale between plaintiff and husband and the defendant was not perfected. defendant Mr. 15. even if required by law to validate the sale. no definite and absolute acceptance (of the offer) BEFORE plaintiff left for the United States. Mere knowledge of the transaction is not the consent Thus. 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.7 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs 13. There was. defendant Pascual MERELY told them (plaintiff) that he would call back once the deed of sale and manager’s check were ready. still that is not consent that the law requires to make the transaction valid. in effect. The sale between plaintiff and husband and the defendant was not perfected 14. defendant Mr. Pascual would strenuously contend that plaintiff Anna Geronimo actually knew of the sale (and in fact.

The offeror may withdraw its offer and revoke the same before acceptance thereof by the offeree. I offered it to him for P2 million.R. Pascual and informed him that we finally found a house. Unless the offeror knows of the acceptance. He said that he will call back once the deed of sale and manager’s check were ready. 19. plaintiff Anna Geronimo was no longer around. Knowledge by the husband alone of defendant’s acceptance of the offer would not suffice. 2003: The acceptance of an offer must be made known to the offeror. Court of Appeals G. she had by then already withdrew the offer. At the time that defendant Pascual called back to relay his acceptance of the offer. I told him that we were now selling our condo unit. When she (Anna Geronimo) knew of the supposed acceptance (of the offer). no real concurrence of offer and acceptance. No. The contract is perfected only from the time an acceptance of an offer is made known to the offeror. As was held in Malbaroa vs. 20. there is no meeting of the minds of the parties. Since he was still interested in buying it. as there was no consent from plaintiff anymore when the acceptance of the offer was made by defendant Pascual. 125761. April 30. 18.8 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs Q: When did the actual negotiations for the sale of the condo unit start? A: In April 2009. (underscoring supplied) RELIEFS . I called Mr.

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.