LAW ON PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS (2023)

OUTLINE & LIST OF CASES

Ownership, Administration, Enjoyment & Disposition of ACP/CPG

1. Alejo v Cortez, GR206114 (19June2017)
Legal Basis: The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to
both spouses jointly. Either spouse may dispose by will of his or her interest in the
community property

Facts:
It appears that sometime in March 1996, Jorge's father, Ricardo, approached his sister,
herein petitioner Dolores Alejo (Dolores), to negotiate the sale of the subject property.8
Accordingly, on March 29, 1996, Jacinta executed a Kasunduan with Dolores for the sale of
the property. for a purchase price of PhP500,000. Under the Kasunduan, Dolores was to pay
PhP70,000 as down payment,, while PhP230,000 is to be paid on April 30, 1996 and the
remaining balance of PhP200,000 was to be paid before the end of the year 1996.9 The
Kasunduan was signed by Jacinta and Ricardo as witness. Jorge, however, did not sign the
agreement.
Dolores was allowed to possess the property and introduce improvements thereon. 11
However, 9n July 3, 1996, Jorge wrote a letter to Dolores denying knowledge and consent to
the Kasunduan. Jorge filed cases for ejectment13 and annulment of sale, reconveyance and
recovery of possession14 against her. 15 These cases were later dismissed by the trial court
on technical grounds.
However, during the pendency of said cases, the subject property was sold by Jorge and
Jacinta to respondents Spouses Ernesto Cortez and Priscilla San Pedro (Spouses Cortez)
under a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 4, 1998
Consequently, Dolores filed the case a quo for annulment of deed of sale and damages
against the Spouses Cortez and the Spouses Leonardo.

Issue:
The key issue in this case is whether the Kasunduan for the sale of a conjugal real property
between Jacinta and Dolores as a continuing offer has been converted to a perfected and
binding contract. For, if Jorge has not accepted or consented to the said sale, the Kasunduan
is considered void rendering the other issues raised herein merely academic.

Court ruling:
Sale by one Spouse of Conjugal Real Property is Void Without the Written Consent of the
other Spouse
Any alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property made during the effectivity of the
Family Code is governed by Article 124 thereof which provides:
Article 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall
belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail,
subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of
within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
The law is therefore unequivocal when it states that the disposition of conjugal property of
one spouse sans the written consent of the other is void. Here, it is an established fact that
the Kasunduan was entered into solely by Jacinta and signed by her alone. By plain terms of
the law therefore, the Kasunduan is void.

Disposition:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October 3, 2012 and Resolution
dated February 26, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 95432 which (1) declared
void the Kasunduan dated 29 March 1996 is AFFIRMED.

Page | 7
 LAW ON PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS (2023)
OUTLINE & LIST OF CASES

2. Magallon v. Montejo, GR L-73733 (1986)

Facts:
Said case was instituted by the plaintiffs (private respondents herein) against Martin Lacerna
to compel partition of parcel of land located in Barrio Kasuga Municipality of Magsaysay,
Davao del Sur, to which said defendant had perfected a claim by homestead. The plaintiffs,
claiming to be the common children of Martin Lacerna and his wife, Eustaquia Pichan, who
died in 1953, asserted a right to one-half of the land as their mother's share in her conjugal
partnership with Martin.

Disposition:
WHEREFORE, the writ of execution complained of is set aside and annulled. Instead of
enforcing said writ, the respondent Trial Court is ordered to effect the partition of the land in
question in accordance with the terms of its now final and executory decision and the
provisions of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. No pronouncement as to costs in this instance.

SO ORDERED.

3. Estonina v. CA, GR 111547 (1997)

4. Cruz v. Leis, GR 125233 (2000)
5. Coja v. CA, GR 151153 (2007)
6. Anno v. Anno, GR 163743 (2006)
7. Aggabao v. Parulan, GR 165803 (2010)
8. Reyes v. Alejandro, GR L-32026 (1986)
9. Uy v. CA, GR 109557 (2000)
10. Fuentes v. Roca, GR 178902 (2010)
11. Manotok Realty Inc. v. CA, GR L-45038 (1987)
12. Partosa-jo v. CA, GR 82606 (1992)
13. Toda v. CA, GR 78583 (1990)
14. Dael v. IAC, GR 68873 (1989)

Termination & Dissolution of ACP/CPG

15. Tanyag v Tanyag, GR231319 (10November2021)

Separation of Property & Administration of Common Property by One Spouse

16. Noveras v Noveras, GR188289 (20 August 2014)

Liquidation Procedure of ACP/CPG

17. Quiao v Quiao, GR176556 (4July2012)

Page | 8
 LAW ON PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS (2023)
OUTLINE & LIST OF CASES

Liquidation Upon Death

18. Heirs of Go v Servacio, GR 157537 (7September2011)

Page | 9