FACTS:
Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos are the registered owners
of a parcel of land with improvements.
Arturo made a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement in favor of
Macatangay, binding himself to sell to latter the subject property and not to
offer the same to any other party within 30 days from date. Full payment would
also be effected as soon as possession of the property shall have been turned
over to Macatangay. Macatangay gave an earnest money amounting to P5,000.00 to
be deducted from the purchase price of P1,300,000.00 in favor of the spouses.
Subsequently, Arturo and Esther had a marital squabble
brewing at that time and Macatangay, to protect his interest, made an
annotation in the title of the property.
He then sent a letter informing them of his readiness to pay the full amount of
the purchase price. Esther, through her SPA, executed in favor of Macatangay, a
Contract to sell the property to the extent of her conjugal interest for the
sum of P650,000 less the sum already received by her and Arturo. She agreed to
surrender the property to Macatangay within 20 days along with the deed of
absolute sale upon full payment, while he promised to pay the balance of the
purchase price for P1, 290,000.00 after being placed in possession of the
property. Macatangay informed them that he was ready to pay the amount
in full. The couple failed to deliver the property so he sued the spouses.
RTC dismissed the complaint, because the SPA could not have
authorized Arturo to sell the property to Macatangay as it was falsified. CA
reversed the decision, ruling the SPA in favor of Arturo, assuming it was void,
cannot affect the transaction between Esther and Macatangay. On the other hand,
the CA considered the RMOA executed by Arturo valid to effect the sale of his
conjugal share in the property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale of property is valid.
RULING:
No. Arturo and Esther appear to have been married before the
effectivity of the Family Code. There being no indication that they
have adopted a different property regime, their property relations would
automatically be governed by the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. The
subject land which had been admittedly acquired during the marriage of the
spouses forms part of their conjugal partnership.
Under the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of
the conjugal partnership. This right is clearly granted to him by
law. More, the husband is the sole administrator. The wife is not
entitled as of right to joint administration.
The husband, even if he is statutorily designated as
administrator of the conjugal partnership, cannot validly alienate or encumber
any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. Similarly,
the wife cannot dispose of any property belonging to the conjugal partnership
without the conformity of the husband. The law is explicit that the wife cannot
bind the conjugal partnership without the husband’s consent, except in cases
provided by law.
More significantly, it has been held that prior to the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the interest of each spouse in the
conjugal assets is inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a
legal nor an equitable estate, and does not ripen into title until it appears
that there are assets in the community as a result of the liquidation and
settlement. The interest of each spouse is limited to the net
remainder or “remanente liquido” (haber ganancial) resulting from
the liquidation of the affairs of the partnership after its dissolution. Thus,
the right of the husband or wife to one-half of the conjugal assets does not
vest until the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership, or
after dissolution of the marriage, when it is finally determined that, after
settlement of conjugal obligations, there are net assets left which can be
divided between the spouses or their respective heirs.
The Family Code has introduced some changes particularly on
the aspect of the administration of the conjugal partnership. The new law
provides that the administration of the conjugal partnership is now a joint
undertaking of the husband and the wife. In the event that one
spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration
of the conjugal partnership, the other spouse may assume sole powers of
administration. However, the power of administration does not include the power
to dispose or encumber property belonging to the conjugal partnership. In
all instances, the present law specifically requires the written consent of the
other spouse, or authority of the court for the disposition or encumbrance of
conjugal partnership property without which, the disposition or encumbrance
shall be void.
Inescapably, herein Arturo’s action for specific performance
must fail. Even on the supposition that the parties only disposed of their
respective shares in the property, the sale, assuming that it exists, is still
void for as previously stated, the right of the husband or the wife to one-half
of the conjugal assets does not vest until the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership. Nemo dat qui non habet. No one can
give what he has not.
