Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa (2002)

Thelma A. JADER-MANALO v. Norma Fernandez CAMAISA and Edilberto CAMAISA

GR No. 147978

January 23, 2002

Ponente: Justice Kapunan

FACTS:

Thelma A. Jader-Manalo (petitioner) allegedly came across an advertisement placed by respondents regarding the sale of a ten-door apartment in Makati and Taytay, Rizal in the April 1992 issue of the Bulletin Today newspaper. In a complaint filed against with the Regional Trial Court, Jader-Manalo stated that she was interested in buying the two properties and negotiated for the purchase through Mr. Proseso Ereno (real-state broker). The petitioner then met with the vendors (respondent-spouses) and expressed a definite offer to buy the properties in the presence of the real estate broker. Edilberto then agreed upon the purchase price of P1.5 M and P2.1M to be paid on installment basis for the Taytay and Makati properties, respectively. When petitioner pointed out the conjugal nature of the properties, Edilberto assured her of his wife’s conformity and consent to the sale. A formal typewritten Contracts to Sell were thereafter prepared by the petitioner, and checks were delivered. Edilberto’s wife Norma asked to meet with herein petitioner to discuss some provisions of the contract, and some changes were noted which were to be incorporated to the contract. Petitioner was then surprised when respondent spouses informer her that they were backing out of the agreement and needed “spot cash” for the full amount of reconsideration. Petitioner then reminded the spouses that the contracts to sell were already perfected and Norma’s refusal to sign would cause undue prejudice. Norma’s refusal to sign prompted the petitioner to file a complaint for specific performance and damages against the respondent spouses in the RTC Makati. The trial court rendered a summary judgment dismissing the complaint under Article 124 of the Family Code which states that the court cannot intervene to authorize the transaction in the absence of the wife’s consent. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal by the trial court and explained that the properties in question were conjugal properties and thus requires the consent of both of the spouses to effect such sale. The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred when it failed to consider that the contract of sale is consensual and is perfected by the mere consent of the parties.

ISSUE:

- W/N raised in this case whether or not the husband may validly dispose of a conjugal property without the wife’s written consent.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

- NO. The properties of the contracts in this case were conjugal. Hence, for the contracts to sell to be effective, the consent of both the husband and wife must concur. Being merely aware of a transaction is not consent.

- It must be noted that Article 124 of the Family Code is only resorted to in cases where the spouse does not give consent is incapacitated.

- The petitioner failed to allege and prove that respondent Norma was incapacitated to give her consent to the contracts.

- The Court does not find error in the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

JUDGMENT:

- The petition is hereby DENIED, and the decision of Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.