La Urbana v. Villasor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 4, 1932, Susana Villasor offered to purchase a house and lot from La Urbana for P11,000, with a P2,000 down payment and the balance payable in P100 monthly installments without interest. At the time of the offer, her husband, Eugenio Villanueva, was absent from the Philippines. Upon his return, he disapproved of the proposition. Procedural History: La Urbana filed a suit for specific performance in the Court of First Instance of Cavite. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, Susana Villasor and Eugenio Villanueva. La Urbana appealed the decision. The Appeal: Plaintiff-appellant La Urbana asserted that the lower court erred in holding the contract unenforceable due to the lack of marital consent from the husband. La Urbana contended that while the wife lacked consent at the time of the offer, the husband's consent need not be expressed and should be presumed in the absence of prompt disavowal, arguing that contracts entered into by a wife without immediate disapproval from her husband are only voidable.
Issue(s)
Whether the contract for the sale of real property entered into by a married woman without the affirmative consent of her husband is enforceable. Whether the husband's consent to a contract entered into by his wife can be presumed from his failure to promptly disavow it.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. It held that the plaintiff-appellant has no right to specific performance against the defendants. The appeal was denied, and the judgment appealed from was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the contract for the sale of the house and lot was not enforceable because the wife, Susana Villasor, did not have the affirmative consent of her husband, Eugenio Villanueva, at the time she made the offer and entered into the agreement. The Court emphasized that the law requires the husband's concurrence as an affirmative act, not merely the absence of disapproval. Plaintiff, La Urbana, was aware that it was dealing with a married woman and made no attempt to secure the husband's consent, which was a prerequisite for the validity of such a transaction concerning conjugal property. Therefore, specific performance could not be demanded. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the husband's consent could be presumed from his failure to promptly disavow the contract. The Court clarified that the law does not provide that all contracts of the wife shall be valid unless promptly disapproved by the husband. Instead, the law mandates an affirmative act of concurrence from the husband. While concurrence may be presumed if the husband's conduct leads others to believe his wife acted with his authority, such circumstances were not present in this case. The husband's disapproval upon learning of the proposition negated any presumption of consent. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for specific performance was denied.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that a contract for the sale of real property entered into by a married woman without the affirmative consent of her husband is unenforceable. The Court emphasized that the husband's concurrence is an active requirement mandated by law and cannot be presumed from his mere absence or failure to object to the transaction. The plaintiff, La Urbana, failed to secure the husband's consent despite knowing the wife was under the disability of coverture, thus it had no right to specific performance.