BA FINANCE VS CA
during the marriage of Augusto and Lily and is therefore presumed conjugal.
However for the said property to be liable, the obligation contracted by the
husband must have redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. The
own benefit because at the time he incurred the loan, he already left the
authorizing Augusto to procure the loan. 2 months prior to the loan, Augusto
had already left Lily and their children and abandoned their conjugal home.
Augusto failed to pay the debt.
The petitioner filed its amended complaint against the spouses
Augusto and Lily on the basis of promissory note. It also prayed for the
issuance of a writ of attachment of the properties of A & L industries.
Lily filed her answer with counterclaim alleging that although Augusto
and she are husband and wife, the former had abandoned her before the filing
of the complainant and that her signature in the special power of attorney was
forged.
II.
Heirs of Ayuste v CA
Note: During the court proceedings Christina Ayuste died, the claim not
having been extinguished by her death the Court ordered for the substitution
of her heirs.
The case is about the spouses Christina and Rafael Ayuste who was
originally residing at Manila but operating a machine shop business at Lucena
City. In order to manage the business , the couple purchased an area of 180
square meters on which a residential house was built for temporary residence
of Rafael who was the managing spouse. February 27, 1987 a deed of absolute
sale was executed by Rafael Ayuste in favor of Viena Malabonga for purpose
of selling the parcel of land worth 40 000 php. On page 2 of this deed appears
was only after Rafaels death when Christina discovered that the title to the
land in Lucena was missing in the course of doing the inventory of their
properties. She discovered that the said property was sold in favor of Viena
Malabonga. She prayed that the deed of absolute sale be declare null and void
on grounds that the property was sold without her consent and with her
signature forged.
In the present case, the deed of sale was executed on February 27,
1987. Rafael Ayuste died on October 13, 1989. However, it was only on
March 2, 1990 that Christina Ayuste filed her complaint with the lower court
asking for the annulment of the sale. Although the action was filed within
ten years from the questioned transaction, it was not brought during the
existence of the marriage which was dissolved upon the death of Rafael
Issue : Whether or not petitioners are entitled to the annulment of the contract
Ayuste in 1989.[17] Clearly, the action for annulment filed by Christina Ayuste
of sale entered into by Rafael Ayuste without the consent of Christina Ayuste.
HELD:
The fact that Christina Ayuste only learned of the sale after the death of
The petitioners are not entitled to the annulment of the contract of sale
entered into by Rafael Ayuste without the consent of Christina Ayuste.
real property may search the records and thereby acquire security against
the law. A sale of real property of the conjugal partnership made by the
instruments the execution of which have not been revealed to them. [19] Since
husband without the consent of his wife is voidable [14] The action for
annulment must be brought during the marriage and within ten years
from the questioned transaction by the wife.[15] Where the law speaks in
III.
Art. 166- Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a
The plain meaning attached to the plain language of the law is that the
contract, in its entirety, executed by the husband without the wife's consent,
may be annulled by the wife. Had Congress intended to limit such annulment
in so far as the contract shall prejudice the wife, such limitation should have
been spelled out in the statute. It is not the legitimate concern of this Court to
recast the law. As Mr. Justice Jose B. L. Reyes of this Court and Judge
Held: The SC agree with the ruling of the CA that Loreza by affixing
her signature to the Deed of Sale on the space provided for witness is deemed
to have given her implied consent to the contract sale.
Ricardo C. Puno of the Court of First Instance correctly stated, [t]he rule (in
the first sentence of Article 173) revokes Baello vs. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 213
and Coque vs. Navas Sioca, 45 Phil. 430, in which cases annulment was held
disposition of conjugal propert does not always have to be explicit or set forth
IV.
the execution of the said point to the fact that Loreza was fully aware of the
PELAYO VS PEREZ
V.
AGUETE VS PNB
Facts: Joe A. Ros obtained a loan of 115K from PNB Laoag Branch
and as a security for the loan plaintiff-appellee executed a real estate mortgage
involving a parcel of land. Upon maturity, the loan remains outstanding. PNB
initiated extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property.
Claiming that Estrella Aguete has no knowledge of the loan obtained
by her husband nor she consented to the mortgage instituted on the conjugal
property, she filed a complaint to annul the proceeding pertaining to the
mortgage, sale and consolidation of the property. Interposing that her
signature was forged and the loan did not redound to the benefit of the family.
Held: Conjugal partnership is still liable because the loan proceeds
redounded to the benefit of the family as it was used for the expansion of the
familys business.
The husband cannot alienate or encumber any conjugal property w/o
the consent express or implied if the wife. Should the husband do so, the
contract is voidable. Art. 173 of CC allows Aguete to question Ros
encumbrance of the subject property. However, the same article does not
guarantee that the courts will declare the annulment of the contract. It will be
declared only upon a finding that the wife did not give her consent.
VI.
DE LEON VS DE LEON
Held: the full payment of the conditional contract was during the
On the other hands, the defendants claimed that they have long been
marriage, thus ownership was transferred only during the marriage. Art 160 of
paying the taxed religiously and have made improvements including the
cc the governing provision in effect at the time of boni and anita married, all
of his right to purchase; Hernandez sold to Dolores Camisura his right in the
said property. To circumvent the prohibitiom, the spouses Hernandez executed
an irrevocable spa to enable Dolores to sell the lot to plaridel mingoa w/0 the
need of requiring Hernandez to sign a deed of conveyance. Plaridel sold the
lot to his daughter who at the time is 20y.o. it was alleged that sergias
signature on the spa was falsified.