Costuna v. Domondon (1989)

Costuna v. Domondon

GR No. 82753

December 19, 1989

Ponente: Justice Sarmiento

PARTIES:

During their marriage, the spouses Amadeo and Estela Costuna acquired three parcels of land with an aggregate area of more or less 599 square meters, all of which were located in San Francisco del Monte Quezon City and registered in the name of Amadeo Costuna. Sometime in November 1977, Amadeo sustained third degree burns on his legs which were treated at various hospitals on different dates. At the request of his relatives and while already being ill, Amadeo went to Samar where he stayed with his sister to sign documents that needed his signature pertaining to his Samar properties and never returned to Estela. A feud ensued among Amadeo’s relatives and Estela over his custody prompting Estela to institute a petition for habeas corpus before the Court of First Instance in Quezon City. Five days later, Amadeo filed an action for partition before the Juvenile Domestic and Relations Court. On July 10, 1978, after failing to get Estela’s consent to the desired partition, Amadeo was constrained to execute a deed of sale over the one-half undetermined portion of the conjugal property in favor of Laureana Domondon (respondent) without the consent of Estela. Estela Costuna instituted special proceedings claiming pro indiviso one half share over the lots after Amadeo’s death. On the other hand, Domondon filed an action to compel Estela to give her conformity to the deed of sale executed by Amadeo, which was granted by the trial court and ordered Estela to affix her signature on the deed of sale. The sale of the 1/2 of the conjugal properties to Domondon was allegedly for the payment of Amandeo’s hospital expenses, which Estela never rebutted. Estela, however, avers that the sale was void because her consent was not given and argues that the Court of Appeals erred in applying Articles 166 and 167 of the new Civil Code and related jurisprudence.

ISSUES:

1.      Whether or not the sale of conjugal properties by the husband may be validly made without the consent of the wife.

2.     Whether or not the conjugal partnership should be made liable for the payment of Amadeo’s hospital dues who allegedly abandoned the conjugal home and his wife.

HOLDING:

1.     YES. As a general rule, the husband may not validly sell real estates belonging to the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. However, the New Civil Code provides certain exceptions. In this case, Amadeo sought the petitioner’s consent but was adamantly withheld by the latter from her belief that the deed of sale was executed in fraud of her. What was sold by Amadeo without the petitioner’s consent was only an undetermined one-half share in the community properties, but he left intact the other undetermined 1/2 share which should belong to Estela Cosuna. The Court concedes that the consent of the petitioner is essential for the validity of the sale, however, the Court may relax the application of the law and consider the sale as falling within the recognized exceptions if consent was unreasonably withheld.

2.     YES. Article 161 of the Civil Code provides that the conjugal partnership shall be liable for all debts and obligations contracted by the husband or the wife for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. The Court states that the benefit required by this article need not be quantified into pesos or square meters of real property. It is enough that the well-being of both or either spouses would undeniably redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.

JUDGMENT:

- The decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from is AFFIRMED.