Anastacio v. Heirs of Coloma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, as heirs of the late Spouses Juan F. Coloma and Juliana Parazo, filed a Complaint for Annulment of Document, Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction against petitioners, Spouses Romeo Anastacio, Sr. and Norma T. Anastacio. The dispute involved a parcel of land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 56899 in the name of Juan F. Coloma, married to Juliana Parazo, acquired in 1965. Respondents claimed petitioners possessed the land by mere tolerance and refused to surrender it after the demise of Juan and Juliana. Petitioners asserted ownership based on an alleged Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 7, 2004, executed by Juan during his lifetime, claiming they paid P100,000.00 as an initial payment in 2003 and P260,000.00 upon execution of the deed, plus P100,000.00 for Juan's wake and burial expenses. They also contended that Juliana's consent was unnecessary as the property was Juan's exclusive inheritance and they had long been separated from bed and board. Procedural History: The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) initially dismissed respondents' case for Recovery of Possession and Title, without prejudice, due to petitioners' claim of ownership. Subsequently, respondents filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for Annulment of Document, Recovery of Ownership and Possession. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding that the evidence failed to establish the alleged falsification of the Deed of Absolute Sale and ruling that the property was Juan's exclusive property, thus not requiring Juliana's consent. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, finding the signature of Juan on the Deed of Absolute Sale to be a forgery and ruling that the property was conjugal, thus requiring Juliana's consent, which was absent. The CA declared the Deed of Absolute Sale void and ordered the surrender of the title and possession of the property to the respondents. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution, raising issues regarding the forgery of Juan's signature, the presumption of regularity in notarization, the conjugal nature of the property, and their good faith in acquiring the property.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred when it declared Juan's signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 7, 2004 (DAS) a forgery, and whether the DAS carries the presumption of regularity in its notarization and execution. Whether the CA erred in declaring that the subject property is the conjugal property of the late spouses Juan and Juliana. Whether the CA erred in declaring that petitioners were not in good faith in acquiring the subject property from Juan.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Deed of Absolute Sale is void because the subject property is conjugal and was sold by Juan without the consent of his wife, Juliana. The Court found that the presumption of conjugality under Article 116 of the Family Code was not overcome by petitioners' evidence. Even if Juan's signature were genuine, the sale would still be void for lack of Juliana's consent. The Court also upheld the CA's finding that petitioners were not buyers in good faith.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the presumption of regularity: The Court deemed it unnecessary to rule on the issue of forgery and the presumption of regularity in the notarization and execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The established nullity of the sale due to the lack of spousal consent rendered these issues inconsequential. Even if the signature were genuine or the notarization regular, the sale would remain void. On the conjugal nature of the property: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the subject property is conjugal. It reiterated that under Article 116 of the Family Code, all property acquired during the marriage is presumed conjugal unless proven otherwise. The stipulations of the parties and TCT No. 56899, showing the property was acquired in 1965 during the marriage of Juan and Juliana, established the predicate for this presumption. Petitioners failed to present strong, clear, and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption, as required by Article 109 of the Family Code. Their claim that the property was inherited was belied by the inscription on the titles indicating a sale from Laurelio Valete to Juan. The separation of Juan and Juliana from bed and board did not exempt the disposition from the requirement of spousal consent. Given that the property is conjugal, the sale by Juan without Juliana's consent is void pursuant to Article 124 of the Family Code. The Court noted that even if Juan's signature were genuine, the Deed of Absolute Sale would still be void. The continuing offer contemplated under Article 124 became ineffective upon Juan's death, especially since Juliana had predeceased him, and there was no evidence of her consent. Therefore, the Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 7, 2004, was declared null and void. On petitioners' good faith: The Court upheld the CA's finding that petitioners were not buyers in good faith. Petitioners failed to present a direct refutation of the CA's ruling on this matter. Furthermore, their handwritten list of alleged payments was deemed self-serving, undated, unsigned by Juan, and included expenses incurred after the supposed sale, casting doubt on its credibility. The CA correctly noted that buyers aware of the spouses' separation from bed and board should have been cautious and verified Juan's authority to sell the property.
Main Doctrine
A sale of conjugal property executed by one spouse without the consent of the other is void, and this nullity subsists even if the signature of the selling spouse is genuine, as the lack of consent from the other spouse renders the transaction void ab initio. The presumption of conjugality under Article 116 of the Family Code, which states that all property acquired during the marriage is presumed conjugal unless proven otherwise, can only be overcome by strong, clear, and convincing evidence.