Spouses Fuentes v Roca

Facts:

Tarciano Roca bought a 358-square meter lot in Zambales from his mother. Six years later in
1988, Tarciano offered to sell the lot to the petitioners Fuentes spouses through the help of Atty. Plagata
who would prepare the documents and requirements to complete the sale. In the agreement between
Tarciano and Fuentes spouses there will be a Php 60,000 down payment and Php 140,000 will be paid
upon the removal of Tarciano of certain structures on the land and after the consent of the estranged
wife of Tarciano, Rosario, would be attained. Atty. Plagata went to Manila to get the signature of Rosario
but notarized the document at Zamboanga . The deed of sale was executed. As time passed, Tarciano
and Rosario died while the Fuentes spouses had in possession and control over the lot. Eight years later,
the children of Tarciano and Rosario filed a case to annul the sale and reconvey the property on the
ground that the sale was void since the consent of Rosario was not attained and that Rosarios’ signature
was a mere forgery. The Fuentes spouses claim that the action has prescribed since an action to annul a
sale on the ground of fraud is 4 years from discovery.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Fuentes spouses.

CA reversed this ruling stating that the action has not prescribed since the applicable law is the 1950
Civil Code which provided that the sale of Conjugal Property without the consent of the other spouse is
voidable and the action must be brought within 10 years. Given that the transaction was in 1989 and the
action was brought in 1997 hence it was well within the prescriptive period.

Issue:

Whether the sale of conjugal property without the wife’s consent is valid

Ruling:

The law that applies to this case is the Family Code, not the Civil Code. Although Tarciano and
Rosario got married in 1950, Tarciano sold the conjugal property to the Fuentes spouses on January 11,
1989.

When Tarciano married Rosario, the Civil Code put in place the system of conjugal partnership
of gains on their property relations. While its Article 165 made Tarciano the sole administrator of the
conjugal partnership, Article 166 prohibited him from selling commonly owned real property without his
wife’s consent. Still, if he sold the same without his wife’s consent, the sale is not void but merely
voidable. Article 173 gave Rosario the right to have the sale annulled during the marriage within ten
years from the date of the sale. Failing in that, she or her heirs may demand, after dissolution of the
marriage, only the value of the property that Tarciano fraudulently sold.

When Tarciano sold the conjugal lot to the Fuentes spouses, the law that governed the disposal
of that lot was already the Family Code.
In contrast to Article 173 of the Civil Code, Article 124 of the Family Code does not provide a period
within which the wife who gave no consent may assail her husband’s sale of the real property. It simply
provides that without the other spouse’s written consent or a court order allowing the sale, the same
would be void. 

The Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. Its Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains expressly
superseded Title VI, Book I of the Civil Code on Property Relations Between Husband and Wife. Further,
the Family Code provisions were also made to apply to already existing conjugal partnerships without
prejudice to vested rights.

Art. 105. x x x The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains already
established between spouses before the effectivity of this Code, without prejudice to vested rights
already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws, as provided in Article 256. (n)