Aliguyon v. Dummang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Buyayo Aliguyon (Buyayo) is the registered owner of a parcel of land. He allowed Kiligge Dummang, father of respondents Jeffrey, Donato, and Johnny Dummang (Dummang et al.), to occupy a portion of the land in 1968. After Dummang et al. left and returned, they were permitted by Buyayo's son, Robert Aliguyon (Robert), to occupy a one-hectare portion. Buyayo later learned of this when Dummang et al. sued Robert for breach of contract to convey the one-hectare portion as payment for Robert's alleged indebtedness. Buyayo filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Damages. Procedural History: In their Answer, Dummang et al. claimed that in 1983, Robert received 72 grams of gold from Jeffrey and failed to return it. Buyayo then offered the subject land as payment for Robert's debt, with an additional PHP 8,000.00 from Jeffrey. An agreement was settled in 1986, the metes and bounds were established, and Dummang et al. have possessed the one-hectare portion since then. They filed a counterclaim for reconveyance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Buyayo's complaint and ordered Buyayo and his wife to convey the one-hectare portion, finding that Buyayo sold the property to Dummang et al. to extinguish his son's debt and that Buyayo slept on his rights. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that Buyayo failed to prove his title, that novation occurred, that the Statute of Frauds did not apply to the partially executed contract, and that the sale was merely voidable and binding as Maria Aliguyon (Maria), Buyayo's wife, did not seek annulment within the prescribed period. The Petition: Buyayo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that his ownership was admitted, shifting the burden of proof, and that there was no novation due to the absence of his and Maria's consent. Dummang et al. reiterated their arguments on novation, the Statute of Frauds, and the voidable nature of the sale.
Issue(s)
I. Whether there was a valid novation; II. Whether the oral sale of the subject land is covered by the Statute of Frauds; III. Whether the sale of the subject land, a conjugal property of Buyayo and Maria, is void due to the absence of the consent of Maria.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages is dismissed. Spouses Buyayo and Maria Aliguyon are ordered to convey by proper deed the one-hectare portion of OCT No. P-10995.
Ratio Decidendi
I. On whether there was a valid novation: Yes, there was a valid novation. Novation is a mode of extinguishing an obligation by changing its object, substituting the debtor, or subrogating a third person in the creditor's rights, requiring the consent of the creditor. While no written agreement explicitly showed Buyayo's intention to substitute Robert as the debtor, the subsequent acts and conduct of the parties clearly indicated this objective. Jeffrey's acceptance of the additional payment for the land, Buyayo's agreement to convey the land, and Dummang et al.'s possession and improvement of the property were incompatible with Robert's original obligation to return the gold. This substitution of the debtor and modification of the obligation constituted a novation. The creditor's consent, which is essential for novation by substitution of the debtor, was implicitly given when Dummang et al. accepted Buyayo's offer to settle Robert's debt with the land and additional payment. II. On whether the oral sale of the subject land is covered by the Statute of Frauds: No, the oral sale is not covered by the Statute of Frauds because it had already been partially executed. The Statute of Frauds requires agreements for the sale of real property to be in writing to be enforceable. However, this rule applies only to executory contracts, not to those that have been fully or partially executed. In this case, the subject land was delivered to Dummang et al., and Jeffrey performed his obligation by paying the additional PHP 8,000.00. The possession of the property and the introduction of improvements thereon are indicators that the oral sale had already been executed. Therefore, the agreement is no longer unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. III. On whether the sale of the subject land is void due to the absence of the consent of the seller's wife: No, the sale is not void but merely voidable, and it remains binding. The marriage of Buyayo and Maria occurred before the effectivity of the Family Code, thus their property regime is the conjugal partnership of gains under the New Civil Code. Article 166 of the New Civil Code requires the wife's consent for the husband to alienate or encumber conjugal real property. However, Article 173 provides that the wife may seek annulment of such a contract within ten years from the transaction. In this case, Maria did not question or seek the annulment of the sale within the ten-year period from 1986. Consequently, the sale, being voidable, became binding between the parties and could no longer be annulled.
Main Doctrine
A sale of conjugal property by the husband without the wife's consent is merely voidable and binding unless annulled within ten years from the transaction. The Statute of Frauds does not apply to partially executed contracts.