Domingo v. Molina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Anastacio and Flora Domingo owned a property. Flora died in 1968. In 1978, Anastacio sold his interest in the property to Spouses Genaro and Elena Molina to answer for his debts. This sale was annotated on the Original Certificate of Title (OCT). Anastacio died in 1986. In 1995, the sale was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 272967, transferring the entire one-half undivided portion to the Spouses Molina. Procedural History: Melecio Domingo, a child of Anastacio and Flora, filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title and Recovery of Ownership against the Spouses Molina, claiming the sale was invalid without Flora's consent as she was already deceased, and that fraud attended the transfer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the case, holding that Anastacio could dispose of the property as it was necessary to answer for conjugal liabilities and that Melecio failed to establish his claim. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling, finding no fraud, that Flora's death was immaterial as Anastacio only sold his rights, and that Melecio's action had prescribed. The Petition: Melecio filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the sale of conjugal property without the wife's consent is void, that fraud attended the conveyance, and that the action had not prescribed. The respondents adopted their arguments from their Appeal Brief, asserting constructive delivery of the title and exercise of ownership perfected the sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the sale of a conjugal property to the spouses Molina without Flora’s consent is entirely valid and legal, considering the dissolution of the conjugal partnership and Anastacio's rights as a co-owner. Whether fraud attended the transfer of the subject property to the spouses Molina, sufficient to invalidate the registered title.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the sale of conjugal property without Flora's consent: The Court held that the conjugal partnership of Anastacio and Flora was dissolved upon Flora's death in 1968. While Article 130 of the Family Code generally voids dispositions of conjugal property prior to liquidation, this is without prejudice to vested rights acquired under the Civil Code. Upon dissolution, an implied co-ownership ensued among Flora's heirs, including Anastacio, and Anastacio owned one-half of the conjugal properties as his share. As a co-owner, Anastacio had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest in the property, even without the consent of other co-owners. The sale to the Spouses Molina was thus valid only with respect to Anastacio's undivided interest, making the Spouses Molina co-owners to that extent. The Court reiterated that the appropriate recourse for co-owners whose consent was not secured in a sale of the entire property or of undivided shares is an action for partition under Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court. On whether fraud attended the transfer of the subject property: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that no fraud attended the sale. The issue of fraud is factual and generally not entertained in a Rule 45 petition, and no exceptions applied. The CA's finding of a notarized deed of conveyance, as annotated on the OCT, negated Melecio's argument that no document was executed. Melecio's belief that Anastacio could not have sold the property without his knowledge was not considered proof of fraud sufficient to invalidate the registered title.
Main Doctrine
The sale of a conjugal property by the surviving spouse after the dissolution of the conjugal partnership due to the death of the other spouse, without prior liquidation of the partnership, is valid only with respect to the surviving spouse's undivided interest, and the buyer becomes a co-owner to that extent. The appropriate recourse for other co-owners whose consent was not secured is an action for partition.