WALTERVILLANUEVAANDAURORAVILLANUEVA,
petitioners, vs. FLORENTINO CHIONG AND ELISERA
CHIONG,respondents.
Civil Law; Property; Conjugal Partnership; The separation in
fact between husband and wife without judicial approval shall not
affect the conjugal partnership.Petitionerscontentionthatthelot
belongs exclusively to Florentino because of his separation in fact
from his wife, Elisera, at the time of sale dissolved their property
relations,isbereftofmerit.Respondentsseparationinfactneither
affected the conjugal nature of the lot nor prejudiced Eliseras
interestoverit.UnderArticle178oftheCivilCode,theseparation
in fact between husband and wife without judicial approval shall
not affect the conjugal partnership. The lot retains its conjugal
nature.
Same; Same; Same; Under Article 160 of the Civil Code, all
property acquired by the spouses during the marriage is presumed
to belong to the conjugal partnership of gains, unless it is proved
that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.Under
Article 160 of the Civil Code, all property acquired by the spouses
during the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnershipofgains,unlessitisprovedthatitpertainsexclusively
tothehusbandortothewife.Petitionersmereinsistenceastothe
lots supposed exclusive nature is insufficient to overcome such
presumptionwhentakenagainstalltheevidenceforrespondents.
Same; Same; Same; Without the wifes consent, the husbands
alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1998 is not void, but
merely voidable.The sale by Florentino without Eliseras consent
is not, however, void ab initio. In Vda. de Ramones v. Agbayani,
471 SCRA 306 (2005), citing Villaranda v. Villaranda, 423 SCRA
571(2004),weheldthatwithoutthewifesconsent,thehusbands
alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 is not void, but
merelyvoidable.
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
198
198
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villanueva vs. Chiong
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Feliciano M. Maraon forpetitioners.
Mejorada, Mejorada & Mejorada Law Firm for
respondentEliseraChiong.
QUISUMBING,J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks the
modificationoftheDecision1datedDecember17,2002ofthe
CourtofAp
_______________
1Rollo, pp.2131.PennedbyAssociateJusticeRemediosA.Salazar
Fernando, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now a member of
thisCourt)andEdgardoF.Sundiamconcurring.
199
VOL.554,JUNE5,2008
199
CityandcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.
(T19393)2325,3 issued by the Registry of Deeds of
Zamboanga del Norte. Sometime in 1985, Florentino sold
the onehalf western portion of the lot to petitioners for
P8,000, payable in installments. Thereafter, Florentino
allowed petitioners to occupy4 the lot and build a store, a
shop, and a house thereon. Shortly after their last
installment payment on December 13, 1986,5 petitioners
demandedfromrespondentstheexecutionofadeedofsale
in their favor. Elisera, however, refused to sign a deed of
sale.
OnJuly5,1991,EliserafiledwiththeRTCaComplaint6
forQuietingofTitlewithDamages,docketedasCivilCase
No. 4383. On February 12, 1992, petitioners filed with the
RTCaComplaint7forSpecificPerformancewithDamages,
_______________
2 Records, pp. 123130 (Civil Case No. 4460). Penned by Judge
PrimitivoS.Abarquez,Jr.
3 Exhibit A (Civil Case No. 4383) and Exhibit 1 (Civil Case No.
4460),folderofexhibits,p.1.
4 TSN, October 11, 1996, p. 10. As admitted by Elisera, petitioners
werealreadyoccupyingthesubjectparceloflandsince1976.
5Exhibits1to1WWW(CivilCaseNo.4460),folderofexhibits,p.
1.
6Records(CivilCaseNo.4383),pp.16.
7Records(CivilCaseNo.4460),pp.14.
200
200
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villanueva vs. Chiong
VOL.554,JUNE5,2008
201
LotNo.
_______________
12Id.,atp.31.
13Id.,atp.76.
202
202
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villanueva vs. Chiong
VOL.554,JUNE5,2008
203
204
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villanueva vs. Chiong
mentisoraspendthrift,orisundercivilinterdictionorisconfinedin
aleprosarium,the husband cannot alienate or encumber any
real property of the conjugal partnership without the wifes
consent
_______________
KNOWALLMENBYTHESEPRESENTS:
This agreement entered into by and between ELISERA CARBONEL
CHIONGhereinafter referred to as the FIRST PARTY, and FLORENTINO
CHIONG,astheSECONDPARTY
xxxx
That the FIRST and SECOND PARTIES have the following conjugal
properties:
xxxx
d.ResidentiallotsituatedatPoblacionDipologCityatKatipunanStreet,
with an area of 207 square meters, more or less titled in the name of the
spouses;
xxxx
20Exhibit2(CivilCaseNo.4460),folderofexhibits,p.2.
21G.R.No.137808,September30,2005,471SCRA306.
22G.R.No.153447,February23,2004,423SCRA571.
23 Since all the relevant events and transactions took place before the
effectivityoftheFamilyCodeonAugust3,1988,thepertinentlawistheCivil
CodeofthePhilippineswhichtookeffectonAugust30,1950.
205
VOL.554,JUNE5,2008
205
206
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villanueva vs. Chiong
Theplainmeaningattachedtotheplainlanguageofthelawis
that the contract, in its entirety, executed by the husband without
the wifes consent, may be annulled by the wife. Had Congress
intended to limit such annulment in so far as the contract shall
prejudicethewife,suchlimitationshouldhavebeenspelledoutin
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
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,54Phil.213andCoque vs. Navas Sioca, 45 Phil. 430,
inwhichcasesannulmentwasheldtoreferonlytotheextentofthe
onehalfinterestofthewife.26
Now,ifavoidablecontractisannulled,therestorationof
what has been given is proper.27 Article 1398 of the Civil
Codeprovides:
An obligation having been annulled, the contracting parties
shall restore to each other the things which have been the subject
matter of the contract, with their fruits, and the price with its
interest,exceptincasesprovidedbylaw.
In obligations to render service, the value thereof shall be the
basisfordamages.
Theeffectofannulmentofthecontractistowipeitoutof
existence,andtorestoretheparties,insofar as legally and
equitably possible, to their original situation before the
contractwasenteredinto.28
Strictly applying Article 1398 to the instant case,
petitioners should return to respondents the land with its
fruits29 and respondent Florentino should return to
petitionersthesumofP8,000,whichhereceivedastheprice
oftheland,togetherwithinterestthereon.
_______________
26Supranote24,atpp.106107.
27Id.,atp.109.
28Tolentino,Civil Code,Vol.IV,p.608.
29Dumasug v. Modelo,34Phil.252(1916).
207
VOL.554,JUNE5,2008
207
assailed
decision
affirmed
with