EDUARDO FELIPE, HERMOGENA V. FELIPE AND VICENTE V. FELIPE, petitioners, vs.

HEIRS
OF MAXIMO ALDON, NAMELY: GIMENA ALMOSARA, SOFIA ALDON, SALVADOR ALDON,
AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

G.R. No. L-60174 | 1983-02-16

Topic: Disposition and encumbrance; NCC

Facts:
 Maximo Aldon married Gimena Almosara in 1936. The spouses bought several pieces of land
in 1948-1950. In 1960-1962, said lands were partitioned into 3 lots
 1951 – the wife sold the lots to the petitioners without the consent of her husband
 April 26, 1976 – the heirs of Aldon (wife and children) filed a complaint against the
petitioners alleging that they had orally mortgaged the said properties to the Felipes and that
an offer to redeem the properties was made but they refused
 RTC ruled in favor of Felipe, declaring that they were the rightful owners of the lots in question
 CA reversed the decision on the ground that the sale instituted by the wife was invalid since
the properties were conjugal in nature and that the sale was done without the husband’s
consent

Issue: Whether or not the sale of properties in question was valid without the consent of the
husband?

Held: The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership (Art. 165 NCC). Subject to
certain exceptions, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal
partnership without the wife’s consent (Art. 166 NCC). And the wife cannot bind the conjugal
property without the husband’s consent, except in cases provided by law (Art. 172 NCC)
In the instant case, the wife’s sale is not covered by the phrase “except in cases provided by law.”
THE SALE IS INVALID

Void or voidable? VOIDABLE

According to Art. 1390 NCC, among the voidable contracts are “those where one of the parties is
incapable of giving consent to the contract (Par. 1). The wife had no capacity to give consent to the
contract of the sale. The capacity belonged not to the husband alone but to both spouses. This is
further supported by the provision that contracts entered by the husband without the consent of the
wife when such consent is required, are annullable at her instance during the marriage and within
10 years from the transaction questioned (Art. 173 NCC).

The voidable contract of the wife was subject to annulment by her husband only during the marriage
because he was the victim who had an interest in the contract. The wife, who was the party
responsible for the defect, could not ask for its annulment. Their children could not likewise seek the
annulment of the contract while the marriage subsisted because they merely had an inchoate right
to the lands sold.

The termination of the marriage and the dissolution of the conjugal partnership by the death of
Maximo Aldon did not improve the situation the wife. After the death of their father, they acquired
the right to question the defective contract insofar as it deprived them of their hereditary rights in
their father’s share in the lands. The father's share is one-half (1/2) of the lands and their share is
two-thirds (2/3) thereof, one-third (1/3) pertaining to the widow.

The Felipes were purchasers of bad faith as revealed in a testimony that sometime
in December 1970, Vicente Felipe (son of the petitioners) attempted to have the wife (Gimena)
sign a ready-made document claiming the sale of the land to them. If sale was valid, why did they
need a document of sale in their favor. Because they knew the lots still did not belong to them.