CASES

Case Digests and Scratch Notes

Home
About
ABALOS VS MACATANGAY, JR.
Posted by kaye lee on 10:00 PM
G.R. No. 155043 September 30 2004

FACTS:
Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos are the registered owners of a parcel of land with improvements.
Arturo made a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement in favor of Macatangay, binding himself to sell
to latter the subject property and not to offer the same to any other party within 30 days from date. Full
payment would also be effected as soon as possession of the property shall have been turned over to
Macatangay. Macatangay gave an earnest money amounting to P5,000.00 to be deducted from the
purchase price of P1,300,000.00 in favor of the spouses.

Subsequently, Arturo and Esther had a marital squabble brewing at that time and Macatangay, to
protect his interest, made an annotation in the title of the property. He then sent a letter informing
them of his readiness to pay the full amount of the purchase price. Esther, through her SPA, executed in
favor of Macatangay, a Contract to sell the property to the extent of her conjugal interest for the sum of
P650,000 less the sum already received by her and Arturo. She agreed to surrender the property to
Macatangay within 20 days along with the deed of absolute sale upon full payment, while he promised
to pay the balance of the purchase price for P1, 290,000.00 after being placed in possession of the
property. Macatangay informed them that he was ready to pay the amount in full. The couple failed to
deliver the property so he sued the spouses.

RTC dismissed the complaint, because the SPA could not have authorized Arturo to sell the property to
Macatangay as it was falsified. CA reversed the decision, ruling the SPA in favor of Arturo, assuming it
was void, cannot affect the transaction between Esther and Macatangay. On the other hand, the CA
considered the RMOA executed by Arturo valid to effect the sale of his conjugal share in the property.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale of property is valid.

RULING:

No. Arturo and Esther appear to have been married before the effectivity of the Family Code. There
being no indication that they have adopted a different property regime, their property relations would
automatically be governed by the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. The subject land which had
been admittedly acquired during the marriage of the spouses forms part of their conjugal partnership.

Under the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. This right is clearly
granted to him by law. More, the husband is the sole administrator. The wife is not entitled as of right
to joint administration.
The husband, even if he is statutorily designated as administrator of the conjugal partnership, cannot
validly alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent.
Similarly, the wife cannot dispose of any property belonging to the conjugal partnership without the
conformity of the husband. The law is explicit that the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership
without the husband’s consent, except in cases provided by law.

More significantly, it has been held that prior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the interest
of each spouse in the conjugal assets is inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal
nor an equitable estate, and does not ripen into title until it appears that there are assets in the
community as a result of the liquidation and settlement. The interest of each spouse is limited to the
net remainder or “remanente liquido” (haber ganancial) resulting from the liquidation of the affairs of
the partnership after its dissolution. Thus, the right of the husband or wife to one-half of the conjugal
assets does not vest until the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership, or after dissolution
of the marriage, when it is finally determined that, after settlement of conjugal obligations, there are net
assets left which can be divided between the spouses or their respective heirs.

The Family Code has introduced some changes particularly on the aspect of the administration of the
conjugal partnership. The new law provides that the administration of the conjugal partnership is now a
joint undertaking of the husband and the wife. In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or
otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal partnership, the other spouse may
assume sole powers of administration. However, the power of administration does not include the
power to dispose or encumber property belonging to the conjugal partnership. In all instances, the
present law specifically requires the written consent of the other spouse, or authority of the court for
the disposition or encumbrance of conjugal partnership property without which, the disposition or
encumbrance shall be void.

Inescapably, herein Arturo’s action for specific performance must fail. Even on the supposition that the
parties only disposed of their respective shares in the property, the sale, assuming that it exists, is still
void for as previously stated, the right of the husband or the wife to one-half of the conjugal assets does
not vest until the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Nemo dat qui non habet. No one can give
what he has not.

G.R. NO. 153802

HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK vs. MIGUELA C. DAILO

FACTS:
Respondent Miguela C. Dailo and Marcelino Dailo, Jr. were married on August 8, 1967. During their
marriage, the spouses purchased a house and lot in San Pablo City, registered in the name of Marcelino
Dailo to the exclusion of his wife.

In 1993, through a grant of Special Power of Attorney to Lilibeth Osmundo, Marcelino obtained a loan
from petitioner Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank, secured by the property in San Pablo. Gesmundo
also executed a Real Estate Mortgage constituted on the subject property in favor of petitioner without
the knowledge and consent of respondent. The loan matured and remained outstanding which led to
the foreclosure of the mortgage.

In 1993, Marcelino died.

Respondent found out later about the mortgage and claimed that she had no knowledge of it. She
further claims that the property was conjugal in nature and so she consequently filed for the Nullity of
Real Estate Mortgage and Certificate of Sale, Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership, Deed of Sale,
Reconveyance with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Damages against petitioner. In the latter’s
Answer with Counterclaim, petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the
property in question was the exclusive property of the late Marcelino Dailo, Jr. The Court of appeals
favored Miguela. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not the mortgage entered into by respondent’s husband without her knowledge was
valid.
2.) Whether or not the property may be held liable for the obligation obtained by the late Marcelino
Dailo.

HELD:
The court held that the property relations of respondent and her late husband shall be governed,
foremost, by Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains of the Family Code and, suppletorily, by the
rules on partnership under the Civil Code. In case of conflict, the former prevails because the Civil Code
provisions on partnership apply only when the Family Code is silent on the matter.

Marcelino and Miguela Dailo were married before the effectivity of the Family Code. In the absence of a
marriage settlement, their properties were governed by the system of Conjugal Partnership of gains,
which was made also made applicable after the effectivity of the Code.

Article 124 of the Family Code, in the absence of (court) authority or written consent of the other
spouse, any disposition or encumbrance of the conjugal property shall be void. The Court ruled that the
mortgage entered into by Marcelino without his wife’s consent and, thus, was void.

As to the issue of liability of the property for the obligation obtained by Marcelino, the court held that
for failure to present clear proof that the said obligation redounded to the benefit of the family which
under Article 121 of the Family Code, the subject property could not be held liable.