You are on page 1of 1

GUIANG v.

CA
26 June 1998 | Panganiban, J. | Void or Inexistent Contracts
PETITIONER: Spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang
RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals and Gilda Corpuz
SUMMARY: Judie Corpuz sold their conjugal house to the Sps. Guiang without the consent of his wife, Gilda, who was then in Manila. Upon
Gildas return, she found her children living in different households, while her husband was nowhere to be found. Gilda challenged the validity of
the sale. PETs averred that without Gildas consent the sale was merely voidable, incorrectly applying CC1390. Court held that consent wasnt
vitiated as provided by 1390 but was completely absent and the contract, falling within the ambit of FC 124 and was therefore void.
DOCTRINE: Art. 1390, par. 2, refers to contracts with vices of consent, entered into by a person whose consent was obtained and vitiated
through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.

FACTS:
1. Spouses Gilda (private RESP) and Judie Corpuz bought a
parcel of land Koranodal, South Cotabato, where they
established their conjugal dwelling. A few years later, they
sold one-half of said land to petitioners, spouses Antonio
and Luzviminda Guiang.
2. Gilda went to Manila to look for work. After her departure,
Judie rarely went home.
3. Harriet Corpuz informed her mother that her father was
going to sell their portion of the lot, including the house, to
the Guiangs. Gilda replied that she was objecting to the sale
but Harriet only informed Luzviminda about it.
4. On March 1, 1990, in the absence of his wife, Judie sold
their one-half portion, and the house, for P30,000, and
executed a Deed of Transfer of Rights in favor of spouses
Guiang.
5. When Gilda returned, her husband was nowhere to be
found.
6. Luzviminda filed a complaint before the Barangay
authorities against Gilda and her children, who continued
to stay in the house. The parties eventually signed an
amicable settlement, wherein Gilda and her children
agreed to leave on or before April 7, 1990.
7. Later on, Gilda approached the Barangay Captain
questioning her signature and requesting for the annulment
of the settlement, but it was unheeded.
8. She filed a complaint against her husband and spouses
Guiang and the RTC held that the Deed of Transfer of
Rights and the amicable settlement are null and void. Gilda
is the rightful owner of the remaining one-half portion of
the lot. This was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUES:
I. WON the contract of sale (Deed of Transfer of Rights) is
merely voidable? NO, the contract was void and could not have
been ratified.

RULING: Petition DENIED.

RATIO:
I. NO, the contract was void and could not have been ratified.

Guiangs defense that the contract was merely voidable


cannot hold due to an erroneous application of Art. 1390 of
the Civil Code, which enumerates voidable contracts.

A1390, par. 2, refers to contracts visited by vices of


consent, i.e., contracts which were entered into by a person
whose consent was obtained and vitiated through
mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.
Gildas consent to the contract of sale of their conjugal
property was totally inexistent or absent.

The contract falls properly within Art. 124 of the Family


Code.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal
properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of
administration. These powers do not include disposition or
encumbrance without authority of the court or the written
consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such
authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance
shall be void.
The fraud and the intimidation referred to by PETs were
perpetrated in the execution of the amicable settlement.
(Gilda testified that brgy. authorities made her sign said
document through misrepresentation and coercion)

Thus the amicable settlement couldnt actually ratify


anything. Art 1422 provides that a contract directly
resulting from a previous illegal contract is void.
Doctrinally, Void contracts cant be ratified.

The Civil Code supports the decision upon comparison


with the Family Code. Art.166, CC provides that the
contract above would be only voidable, but Art 173, CC
allows the wife to annul it. On the other hand, the fraud and
intimidation that could vitiate consent was present in the
amicable settlement agreement.