You are on page 1of 2

Cheeseman vs IAC private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or

associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.”
1. Thomas Cheesman and Criselda P. Cheesman were married on December 4, 1970 but
4. In any event, he had and has no capacity or personality to question the subsequent
have been separated since February 15,1981
sale of the same property by his wife on the theory that in so doing he is merely
2. 1974, a deed of sale was made in favor of Criselda, married to Thomas (Olongapo)
exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of conjugal property. To sustain
3. Thomas Cheesman, although aware of the deed, did not object to the transfer, tax
such a theory would permit indirect controversion of the constitutional prohibition. If
declarations being made only to his wife
the property were to be declared conjugal, this would accord to the alien husband a
4. July 1981, Criselda sold the properrt to Padilla without the knowledge and consent of
not insubstantial interest and right over land, as he would then have a decisive vote
Thomas
as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the Constitution does not permit
5. Thomas filed a suit at the CFI praying for the annulment of the sale on the ground that
him to have.
the transaction had been executed without his knowledge and consent
6. Criselda alleged that the property was paraphernal (bought with her funds exclusively)
and Thomas, being an American is disqualified from owning lands, and Padilla was a
buyer in good faith
7. CFI declared sale void ab intio
8. Padilla filed a petition opposing the judgment grounded on "fraud, mistake and/or
excusable negligence"
9. CFI held that the sale was valid
a. presumption in Article 160 CC has been overcome by evidence—that all property
of the marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership "unless it be proved that it
pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife"—and that the immovable in
question was in truth Criselda's paraphernal property;
b. presumption in Article 160 could not apply "inasmuch as the husband-plaintiff is
an American citizen and therefore disqualified under the Constitution to acquire
and own real properties
c. the exercise by Criselda of exclusive acts of dominion with the knowledge of her
husband "had led . . . Estelita Padilla to believe that the properties were the
exclusive properties of Criselda Cheesman and on the faith of such a belief she
bought the properties from her and for value," and therefore, Thomas Cheesman
was, under Article 1473 of the Civil Code, estopped to impugn the transfer to
Estelita Padilla.
10. IAC affirmed

WON property in Conjugal NO, PARAPHERNAL

WON sale was valid

1. It was already found by the CFI and IAC that the funds used by Criselda Cheesman was
money she had earned and saved prior to her marriage to Thomas Cheesman, and
that Estelita Padilla did believe in good faith that Criselda Cheesman was the sole
owner of the property in question.
2. Factual findings of the lower courts are conclusive
3. the fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land. Section 14, Article
XIV of the 1973 Constitution ordains that, "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no

Vicente argues that he was not bound by the deed because the other property was 6. 1st one was granted. Frenzel is an Australian citizen and married Teresita Santos in 1974. have been disqualified from acquiring cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without lands of the public domain. not 5. Cagayan was left to Villaranda siblings. Honorio only 10. The beach house was rented out by her father and rentals were collected by him 7. Article 173. In 1981. where Honorario built a building on prohibited from owning lands. Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a associations qualified to acquire or hold lands in the public domain spendthrift. and damages. the receipts were all made out in her name Honorio’s wife. Honorio then sold Divisoria lot to Colorhouse Laboratories So he paid for her lawyer 6.all in Davao) 13. and named it after Ederlina because he was for his other land in Cagayan. Honorio argues that the absence of Ana’s signature does not prove lack of consent.VALID was declared in default (HSBC money. sum of money. Hence. or 5. and in pari delicto Vicente . Vicente cited the FC and several cases to point that the contract is void because funds. lands as an alien. Ermita and QC property) 8. they have also been disqualified from acquiring the wife’s consent. 14 Sec. 3. declaration of ownership of real and personal WON the deed was valid YES properties. 5. unless a legislative intent to give them WON he is entitled to the lands NO retroactive effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language 1. And if voidable can only be annulled by the spouse who did not give consent. said 6. presupposes her knowledge of the deed. Laws should be applied prospectively only. after all. Alfred filed a complaint with the RTC for the return of his properties and money. a woman married to a German. Without the wife’s consent. rather only as a transient owner) 3. The petitioner. The deed was entered into in July 6. so because said agreement was entered 8. Honorio and wife Ana filed an action for specific performance to compel Vicente to 5. Klaus wrote to Alfred and asked him to leave Ederlina alone and that they comply with the Deed of Exchange had been married since 1978. the husband’s alienation or encumbrance of conjugal separated in fact. The brothers subsequently from a lawyer who transferred his rights. the petitioner cannot have the subject to invalidate the contract has thus prescribed. 4. purchase thereof. Under Article 1412 of the New Civil Code." Her right to bring an action 4. Art. Cannot also claim damages because of the illegality of contract. But since the wife knew 9. by Ana within ten years from "the transaction questioned. or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium. They set up a beauty parlor at Ermita Manila.Frenzel vs Catito Villaranda vs Villaranda 1. where Vicente agreed to convey his portion to Honorio 3. land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals. corporations. which Alfred paid executed a deed of exchange. whether individuals or corporations. they 1. Alfred and Ederlina separated.an action to annul an alienation or encumbrance may be instituted by the transactions are void. did not sign the document 14. cannot come into a court of law 7. 14: Save in cases of hereditary succession. no evidence that any action to annul the transfer made by Honorio was ever brought and ask to have his illegal objective carried out. He then met Ederlina Calito. She acquire private lands. no private used. before the FC’s enactment. CA held that the CC is applicable not the FC. Her 2 petitions for divorce were denied into without the wife’s signature. being a party to an illegal contract. Alfred then bought a house in QC. the husband 2. wife during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned. She admitted but said she was planning to divorce him. said is voidable not void. Hence. 8. property prior to the effectivity of the Family Code is not void. a subdivision plan was completed and Vicente was issued a TCT for his share 4. Even if the sales were entered into him as the real vendee. Ana. Vicente appealed 12. CC Article 166. Aliens. A land in Divisoria. he knew he would be marrying her after 3. the assailed Deed is still valid properties deeded to him or allow him to recover the money he had spent for the and enforceable. but merely voidable 2. 2nd one was dismissed (because he was disqualified from owning 2. under her name and the property was 2. He also filed for specific performance. One day. Klaus wanted half of Ederlina’s properties and threatened to file a bigamy case against about the deed without filing any action within 10 years and the fact that she filed her with her husband the action. and the agreement was already revoked by the parties 7. Ederlina denied the allegations and said it was acquired by her with her personal 1.in pari delicto) CA affirmed (he had no intention of owning the lands and such is only voidable not void as he was disqualified. Alfred again purchased 2 lands and a beach house in Davao under her name not delivered. 1976. He demanded the return of all the properties he bought acquired Americal citizenship after the deed and aliens who lost citizenship can still 11. 1973 Constitution. Then. (properties worth P724k. He transferred to her bank account all his money (HSBC HK) 4. private lands.