Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Embrado v. CA 233 SCRA 335 Facts: Spouses Carpitanos sold a lot to Lucia Embrado.

Lucia married Oreste Torregiani which they build their home to the lot. Lucia sold the lot to her adopted child Eda Jimenez who in return sold the lot to Cimafranca and Salimbagat. Petitioner filed for nullity of contract and sales alleging that the sale of Lucia to Eda was void as Oreste did not consent the sale which is conjugal property. CA ruled for the respondents, saying that Lucia does not need the consent of Oreste because the lot is her paraphernal property. CA also believes that Cimafranca and Salimbagat are buyers in good faith. Issues: Whether or not the lot was paraphernal property of Lucia or a conjugal property Held: Art. 158, the land becomes conjugal upon 2 conditions: Construction of building was at the expense of the partnership Land is owned by one of the spouses. The land being conjugal needed the consent of Oreste hence, the sale is void.

Embrado v. CA 233 SCRA 335 Facts: Lot 564 was sold to Lucia Embrado, as can be proven in a Venta Definitiva by spouses Carpitanos. The deed was prepared and signed on July 2, 1946, although it was effective since 1941.1943: Petitioners got married to each other. Feb 13, 1948: The sale was registered and Transfer Certificate No. T-99 was issued in her name alone. Originally, her status on the Title was single, but it was changed to married to Oreste Torregiani by the CFI of Zamboanga del Norte. The couple established their home on the lot and in1958, constructed a residential/commercial building.1971: Lucia sold for P1000 Lot 564 to her adopted daughter, Eda Jimenez. Jimenez proceeded to selling parts of the lot to Cimafranca and Salimbagat. Petitioners instituted an action for declaration of nullity of contract, annulment of sales, reconveyance and damages against private respondents. Alleging that the initial sale of Lucia to Eda was void because of lack of consideration and Oreste did not consent to the sale of the conjugal property. Lucia was misled into signing the deed of sale. She thought that the lot was only intended as a security for a loan of the Jimenez spouses. They also believe that Cimafranca and Salimbagat are buyers in bad faith. CA ruled for the respondents, saying that Lucia does not need the consent of Oreste because the lot is her paraphernal property. CA also believes that Cimafranca and Salimbagat are buyers in good faith.

Issues/Held/Ratio: W/N Lot 564 was paraphernal property of Lucia or conjugal property. First of all, the sale was not completed until the DELIVERY of the object to the creditor. (Art 1496 of the Civil Code)The construction of the building on the lot was done during the marriage already and according to Art. 158, the land becomes conjugal upon 2 conditions: Construction of building was at the expense of the partnership Land is owned by one of the spouses. W/N sale to Jimenez was valid. Not valid. Evidence shows that the Jimenez spouses had no sufficient means of livelihood so it is questionable how they were able to obtain the money for the property. Eda never proved also how she obtained the money to pay. Also, based on the decision in the first issue, the land being conjugal needed the consent of Oreste as well. The sale is void ab initio being contrary to law. Thus this also applies to Cimafranca and Salimbagat quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum W/N Cimafranca and Salimbagat are buyers in good faith. If this is so, the sale to them is valid. NO. The relationship of Cimafranca and Salimbagat to the Jimenez spouses shows that it would be impossible that they did not know of their financial situation. It is a general rule that a buyer of real property must be wary before buying property and investigate the rights of those in possession of a certain property. The fact that they looked in the Register of Deeds to see the title is not an excuse, especially if they know about the bad financial status of the Jimenezes.