Villanueva v. Chiong (2008)

Villanueva v. Chiong

GR No. 159889

June 5, 2008

Ponente: Justice Quisumbing

FACTS

Florentino and Elisera Chiong were married in 1960 but have separated in fact since 1975. During their marriage, they acquired a lot situated in Dipolog City. Sometime in 1985, Florentino sold one-half western portion of the lot to petitioners for P8,000 payable in installments. Florentino allowed petitioners to occupy and build a store, shop and house on the said lot. Shortly after the last installment payment, petitioners demanded the execution of a deed of sale in their favor, however, Elisera refused to sign. Elisera then filed a complaint for quietitng of title while the spouses Villanueva filed for a complaint for specific performance. Florentino executed the Deed of Abolsolute sale but was annulled by the Regional Trial Court and ordered the petitioners to vacate the lot and remove all improvements therein. Petitioners sought reconsideration but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The petitioners contend that the RTC and CA erred in declaring the deed of sale executed by Florentino Chiong in favor as null and void and void as well as holding that the lot in question is conjugal property.

ISSUE:

W/N the subject lot is an exclusive property of Florentino or a conjugal property of the respondents.

W/N the sale by Florentino is valid without the consent of his wife, Elisera.

RATIONALE:

1.     NO, Florentino’s contention that the property relations between him and his wife Elisera dissolved because of his separation in fact from her is without merit. Under Article 178 of the Civil Code, the separation in fact between husband and wife without juidical approval shall not affect the conjugal partnership. Thus, the lot retains its conjugal nature.

2.     YES. In Villaranda v. Villaranda, the Supreme Court held that without the wife’s consent, the husband’s alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal property prior to the effectivity of the Family Code is not void but merely voidable. Article 166 of the same code necessitates both of the spouses’ consent for the sale to be valid. Citing Heirs of Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes v. Mirajes, it was held that the alienation must be annulled in its entirety and not only insofar as the share of the wife in the conjugal property is concerned.

JUDGMENT:

- Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.