Villanueva v. Chiong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Florentino and Elisera Chiong were married in January 1960 and separated in fact since 1975. During their marriage, they acquired Lot No. 997-D-1. In 1985, Florentino sold the western portion of this lot to petitioners Walter and Aurora Villanueva for P8,000.00, payable in installments. Petitioners occupied the lot and built improvements. After the last installment payment in December 1986, petitioners demanded a deed of sale, but Elisera refused to sign. Procedural History: Elisera filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title with Damages (Civil Case No. 4383). Petitioners filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages (Civil Case No. 4460). The RTC consolidated these cases. On May 13, 1992, Florentino executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of petitioners. The RTC annulled the deed of sale, ordered petitioners to vacate the lot and remove improvements, dismissed the specific performance case, but ordered Florentino to return the sale consideration with interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The Petition: Petitioners seek modification of the appellate court's decision, arguing the lot belonged solely to Florentino and that the sale should not have been declared void.
Issue(s)
Whether the subject lot is the exclusive property of Florentino Chiong or conjugal property of respondents Florentino and Elisera Chiong. Whether the sale of the subject lot by Florentino Chiong without the consent of his wife, Elisera Chiong, is valid. Whether the annulled sale should be entirely voided or only insofar as the wife's share is concerned; and the restoration of parties to their original situation.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with modification, deleting the award of interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the subject lot is exclusive or conjugal property: The Court held that the separation in fact between Florentino and Elisera did not affect the conjugal nature of the lot. Under Article 160 of the Civil Code, property acquired during the marriage is presumed conjugal unless proven otherwise. While the title was in Florentino's name, Elisera presented a real property tax declaration acknowledging both as owners, a Memorandum of Agreement where they declared it as conjugal property, and Florentino admitted his co-ownership in the Deed of Absolute Sale. These pieces of evidence sufficiently established the conjugal nature of the lot. On the validity of the sale without the wife's consent: The Court reiterated that under Article 166 of the Civil Code, the husband cannot alienate conjugal real property without the wife's consent. Such alienation, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, is not void ab initio but merely voidable at the instance of the wife within ten years from the transaction, as provided in Article 173 of the Civil Code. Elisera timely filed her complaint within the prescribed period, thus rendering the sale annullable. On whether the annulled sale should be entirely voided and the restoration of parties: The Court affirmed the principle that the alienation of conjugal property by the husband without the wife's consent must be annulled in its entirety, not just with respect to the wife's share. Citing Heirs of Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes v. Mijares, the Court explained that the law, as interpreted, allows the wife to annul the entire contract, and it is not the Court's role to limit this statutory right. Therefore, the entire Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Florentino was correctly annulled. The Court noted that upon annulment, parties must restore what they have received. Florentino was ordered to return the P8,000.00 with interest, and petitioners were to return the land with its fruits. However, considering that petitioners benefited from the land and Florentino used the money, the Court found it equitable to consider these as offsetting each other, thus deleting the award of interest on the P8,000.00.
Main Doctrine
The sale of conjugal real property by the husband without the wife's consent, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, is not void ab initio but merely voidable at the instance of the wife within ten years from the transaction, pursuant to Articles 166 and 173 of the Civil Code. Such voidable alienation must be annulled in its entirety.