Cueno v. Bautista
ABANDONMENTFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Eulalio and Flora Cueno (petitioners) claim ownership over a parcel of land (Lot No. 2836). The land was co-owned by Luis Bonifacio and Isidro Bonifacio. Petitioners bought Isidro's share in 1961. Subsequently, Eulalio allegedly sold their share to Flora's father, Luis, without Flora's consent in 1963 (second sale). Luis then sold the property to respondents Spouses Epifanio and Veronica Bautista in 1977 (third sale). Respondents took possession, built improvements, and later donated the property to their children. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of shares, possession, nullity of the second sale and donation, and cancellation of titles. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the second sale void for lack of spousal consent but upheld the third sale regarding Luis's share, granting indemnity for improvements. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint, holding respondents were innocent purchasers in good faith and for value who relied on the Torrens title. The Petition: Petitioners assail the CA's decision, arguing the second sale is void for lack of Flora's consent (violating Article 166 of the Civil Code) and that respondents were not innocent purchasers for value.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of petitioners' complaint. Whether the second sale executed by Eulalio without Flora's consent is void or voidable. Whether the action to annul the second sale has prescribed.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The dismissal of the Spouses Eulalio and Flora Cueno's Complaint is affirmed. The second sale is deemed voidable, and the action to annul it has prescribed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of petitioners' complaint: The Court found that the petition raises questions of fact, which are generally not cognizable in a Rule 45 petition. The RTC found that petitioners failed to prove they never sold their share to Luis and that Luis never sold the property to respondents. These factual findings are binding on the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the second sale and the third sale are public documents, enjoying a presumption of regularity. The Court noted that the RTC invalidated the second sale solely on the ground of lack of spousal consent, while the CA focused on respondents being innocent purchasers in good faith and for value. The Supreme Court proceeded to resolve the issue of spousal consent. On whether the second sale is void or voidable: The Court clarified the conflicting jurisprudence regarding Article 166 of the Civil Code. It held that, unlike under the Family Code where such transactions are void, under the Civil Code, a disposition of conjugal real property by the husband without the wife's consent is merely voidable, not void. This is because Article 173 of the Civil Code provides a specific remedy for the wife to annul such contracts within a specified period. The Court explicitly abandoned prior rulings in Bucoy and companion cases that characterized such contracts as void for lack of consent of an indispensable party. Instead, it adopted the view that such lack of consent renders the husband without legal capacity to alienate the property, akin to an incapacity to give consent under Article 1390, which makes the contract voidable. The Court also abandoned the ruling in De Leon and companion cases that the nullity proceeds from transactions executed against mandatory provisions being void, citing Article 5 of the Civil Code which allows for exceptions where the law itself authorizes validity, as is the case with Article 166 in relation to Article 173. On whether the action to annul the second sale has prescribed: Applying the established principle that a sale of conjugal real property without the wife's consent is voidable under Article 166 and subject to annulment under Article 173 of the Civil Code, the Court found that the action must be brought by the wife, during the marriage, and within ten years from the questioned transaction. In this case, the second sale occurred on December 4, 1963. Flora Cueno had ten years from that date, or until 1973, to file an action to annul the sale. Since the complaint was filed on November 10, 2008 (or January 14, 2009, as mentioned in the discussion), it was filed long after the prescriptive period had expired. Therefore, Flora's right to annul the second sale had prescribed, making the sale valid and binding. Consequently, petitioners had no right to question the subsequent sale by Luis to the respondents.
Main Doctrine
A sale of conjugal real property by the husband without the wife's consent, under the Civil Code, is merely voidable, not void. The wife must file an action for annulment within ten years from the transaction during the marriage. Failure to do so within the prescribed period renders the contract valid and binding.