Nobleza v. Nuega
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Shirley B. Nuega (Shirley) and Rogelio A. Nuega (Rogelio) were married on September 1, 1990. Prior to their marriage, Shirley, while working abroad, sent Rogelio money for the purchase of a residential lot. Rogelio purchased the house and lot on September 13, 1989. Shirley claims she settled the balance and paid subsequent amortizations. The Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued solely in Rogelio's name on October 19, 1989. After their marriage and living in the property, Shirley returned abroad for work. She discovered Rogelio had brought another woman into their home and was introducing her as his wife. Shirley filed cases for concubinage and legal separation. While these cases were pending, Rogelio intended to sell the property. Shirley warned potential buyers, including petitioner Josefina V. Nobleza (Josefina), about the pending cases. Nevertheless, Rogelio sold the property to Josefina on December 29, 1992, without Shirley's consent. Procedural History: Shirley filed a complaint for Rescission of Sale and Recovery of Property against Josefina and Rogelio before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City. The RTC ruled in favor of Shirley, ordering the rescission of the Deed of Absolute Sale concerning Shirley's 1/2 portion of the property and ordering Josefina to reconvey that portion or pay its market value, plus attorney's fees. Josefina appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's decision with modification, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void in its entirety and ordering Josefina to reconvey the entire property to Shirley and Rogelio, without prejudice to Josefina's right to recover from Rogelio. Josefina's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner Josefina V. Nobleza seeks to set aside the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding that she was not a purchaser in good faith and in modifying the RTC's decision by declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void in its entirety. She contends that she examined the TCT and found the property registered solely in Rogelio's name, thus she was not required to go beyond the face of the title.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Josefina V. Nobleza was a buyer in good faith. Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1992, is void in its entirety.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that petitioner Josefina V. Nobleza was not a buyer in good faith. A buyer in good faith must exercise prudence and due diligence, which involves more than just relying on the face of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). The Court noted that Josefina's sister resided near the property and Rogelio and Shirley's house, providing an opportunity to inquire about other rights or interests in the property. Furthermore, the respondent Shirley testified that she had warned neighbors, including Josefina's sister, about deals with Rogelio concerning the property, a factual finding affirmed by the lower courts. The irregularity in the dates of the Community Tax Certificates of the witnesses in the Deed of Absolute Sale, which were dated after the deed itself, also cast doubt on the transaction's bona fides. The absence of Rogelio's civil status in the Deed of Absolute Sale, despite Josefina's claim that the TCT stated he was 'single,' further undermined her assertion of good faith. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the Deed of Absolute Sale is void in its entirety. The subject property was acquired during the marriage of Shirley and Rogelio, thus forming part of their absolute community of property under Article 91 of the Family Code, as it did not fall under any of the exclusions in Article 92. Rogelio sold the property on December 29, 1992, during the subsistence of their marriage, without Shirley's written consent or court authority, as required by Article 96 of the Family Code. Consequently, the disposition of the community property was void. The Court clarified that the sale is void in its entirety, not just as to Shirley's share, because the law requires the consent of both spouses for the disposition of community property, and the absence of one renders the entire transaction null and void. The appellate court correctly modified the trial court's decision to reflect this.
Main Doctrine
A sale of property belonging to the absolute community of property, executed by one spouse without the written consent of the other or the authority of the court, is void in its entirety. The buyer's claim of good faith is unavailing if they fail to exercise due diligence and investigate surrounding circumstances that would put a prudent person on guard, especially when the property is titled solely in the name of one spouse who is selling it during the subsistence of the marriage.