You are on page 1of 1

AGUSTIN DE LUNA, ET AL. vs.

JOSE LINATOC
G.R. No. L-48403
October 28, 1942
BOCOBO, J .:
Relevant Laws/Topic: Article 3 Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Short summary: The wife, who acted as an agent of the husband (De Luna), sold a portion of their conjugal property during the
subsistence of their marriage (The land was under the name of the husband only because they already partitioned the parcel of land).
Under the law, a conjugal property cannot be partitioned during the subsistence of a marriage unless there was a judicial separation of
property.
The spouses, claiming ignorance of the said prohibition, wanted to assail the sale of the land to Jose Linatoc. The court DID NOT
ALLOW such petition because of Article 3 (Article 2 of the CC during the time the decision was rendered)
FACTS:
P-wife (no name provided eh, si Agustin lang meron) sold a portion of their conjugal property to R. The parcel of land was the
husbands portion of the conjugal property. The wife, with the knowledge and consent of the husband, sold the lot to R as evidenced by
the deed of sale and the deed of recognition wherein the husband recognized and reiterated his acquiescence to the sale (Art 1416 A
conjugal property can be sold by one spouse if the other spouse consents).
Such sale was prohibited by Art 1432 because partitioning the conjugal property during marriage can only be done if there was a
judicial separation of property, or else it would be illegal and void. The sale can onl be valid if the land was sold under the name of the
conjugal partnership and not of the husband only.
The Ps assail the validity of the sale to R, claiming that they do not know of such prohibition
ISSUE: WON the sale may be validly annulled by the spouses? - NO
HELD/RATIO:
Mistake of law does not make a contract voidable, because ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from its compliance (art. 2,
Civil Code; 8 Manresa, 646, 2d ed.). That the petitioners did not know the prohibition against partition of the conjugal partnership
property during marriage (art. 1432, Civil Code) is no valid reason why they should ask for the annulment of the sales made Exhibits C
and D and recognized in Exhibit I.
Moreover, there is the time-honored legal maxim that no man can take advantage of his own wrong. To repudiate the sales in question,
petitioners are setting up their own wrongful act of partitioning their conjugal property, which violated article 1432 of the Civil Code. The
prohibition in said article affects public policy, as it is designed to protect creditors of the conjugal partnership and other third persons.
Petitioners shall not, therefore, be allowed thus to rest their cause of action to recover the lands sold, upon the illegality of the partition
which they attempted to make. Otherwise, they would profit by their own unlawful act.