Villaranda v. Villaranda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Vicente Villaranda and respondent Honorio Villaranda, brothers, executed a Deed of Exchange on July 6, 1976. Under this deed, Vicente agreed to convey his 64.22-square-meter portion of a property inherited from their parents in Divisoria, Cagayan de Oro City, to Honorio. In exchange, Honorio was to convey a 500-square-meter property in Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro City, to Vicente. Honorio took possession of the Divisoria lot and constructed a building thereon. Subsequently, a subdivision plan for Lot 448-B was completed, and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-65893 for Vicente's 64.22-square-meter share was issued in his name. Procedural History: Honorio and his wife, Ana Maria Y. Villaranda, filed an action for specific performance against Vicente to compel him to comply with his obligations under the Deed of Exchange, specifically to identify and convey his 500-square-meter portion of the Macasandig property. They also sought the conveyance of the 64.22-square-meter Divisoria lot. During the pendency of the case, Honorio conditionally sold the Divisoria lot to Colorhouse Laboratories, Inc., which intervened. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the spouses. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The Petition: Petitioner Vicente Villaranda filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's decision. He argued that the Deed of Exchange was not perfected or consummated due to the indeterminate object and the need for further agreements, and that it was revoked by the parties. He also contended that the Deed was void for lack of his wife's signature.
Issue(s)
Whether there was a perfected and consummated deed of exchange. Whether the Deed of Exchange, not signed by the wife of Respondent Honorio G. Villaranda, is valid and enforceable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Deed of Exchange was deemed valid and enforceable.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of perfection and consummation of the Deed of Exchange: The Court ruled that petitioner's argument that the Deed was not perfected or consummated due to an indeterminate object was raised too late. Such an issue, not raised before the lower courts, is barred by estoppel and does not fall under any of the exceptions allowing it to be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court noted that the argument that the contract was not perfected was inconsistent with petitioner's claim that the parties had agreed to revoke the Deed, as revocation presupposes the existence of a valid contract. Therefore, the petitioner's contentions on this issue were deemed to have failed. On the issue of the absence of the wife's signature: The Court held that the applicable law was the Civil Code, not the Family Code, as the Deed was executed before the Family Code took effect. Under Article 166 of the Civil Code, the husband cannot alienate or encumber conjugal real property without the wife's consent, but this does not render the transaction void. Instead, Article 173 of the Civil Code provides that the wife may seek annulment within ten years from the transaction. Since Ana Maria Y. Villaranda did not file an action for annulment within the prescribed period, her right to do so had prescribed, rendering the Deed valid and enforceable. The Court further clarified that the prohibition is for the benefit of the spouse, not third parties, and thus petitioner Vicente could not invoke it. The cited cases of Garcia v. Court of Appeals and Nicolas v. Court of Appeals were distinguished as they involved petitions brought by the spouses themselves, and even in those cases, the contracts were voidable, not void ab initio.
Main Doctrine
Without the wife’s consent, the husband’s alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property prior to the effectivity of the Family Code is not void, but merely voidable. The right to annul such a transaction prescribes within ten years from the date of the transaction.