Costuna vs. Domondon

The Court held that a husband may alienate his share in conjugal real property without the wife's consent when the purpose is to pay for obligations that benefit the conjugal partnership, such as the husband's necessary medical and hospitalization expenses, and the wife's refusal to consent is unreasonable under the circumstances.

The spouses Amadeo and Estela Costuna acquired three parcels of land during their marriage. In 1976, Amadeo executed a will. Following marital problems and after Amadeo sustained severe burns in 1977, he was taken by his relatives to Samar and never returned to the conjugal home. A habeas corpus petition filed by Estela and a partition suit filed by Amadeo became moot upon his death in 1978. Prior to his death, Amadeo executed a deed of sale over his one-half undivided share in the conjugal properties in favor of Laureana Domondon to generate funds for his medical expenses, but Estela refused to give her consent.

• The conjugal spouses Amadeo and Estela Costuna acquired three parcels of land registered in Amadeo's name.
• Amadeo executed a will in 1976. Subsequent marital problems led to their separation.
• In 1977, Amadeo suffered severe burns and was hospitalized. His relatives took him to Samar, and he never returned to Estela.
• On July 10, 1978, Amadeo executed a deed of sale over his one-half undivided share in the conjugal properties in favor of Laureana Domondon to obtain funds for his hospitalization and medication, without Estela's consent.
• Amadeo died on November 5, 1978. In the subsequent probate of his will, Domondon opposed it, claiming a share via the deed of sale, but the probate court did not rule on the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
• Domondon then filed a separate action to compel Estela to consent to the deed of sale.

• Petitioner Estela Costuna argued that the deed of sale was spurious, simulated, and invalid due to the want of her mandatory consent as the spouse.
• She contended that Amadeo was gravely ill and possibly coerced or incapacitated when he signed the deed, and that the consideration was not actually paid.
• She maintained that Amadeo's medical expenses should not be a charge against the conjugal partnership because he had voluntarily abandoned the conjugal home.
• She asserted that Article 161 of the Civil Code does not include illness or old age as a conjugal liability and distinguished the cited case of Sumulong v. Cembrano on the ground of abandonment.

• Respondent Laureana Domondon argued that the sale was valid because Amadeo's one-half share was his to dispose of, and the proceeds were used for his necessary medical care, which benefited the conjugal partnership.
• She contended that Estela's consent was unreasonably and cruelly withheld, as Amadeo sought it repeatedly for his very survival.
• She maintained that the sale fell under the exception in Article 161(1) of the Civil Code, as the husband's debts for his own support (medical expenses) are for the benefit of the conjugal partnership.
• She asserted that the consideration was paid and utilized for the stated purpose, and the allegations of fraud were conjectural.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its findings of fact and application of law.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the deed of sale executed by the husband over his share in conjugal property without the wife's consent is valid.
  2. Whether the husband's hospital and medical expenses are chargeable against the conjugal partnership.

• Procedural: The Court found no compelling reason to disturb the concurrent factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which are generally binding on the Supreme Court.
• Substantive:
  1. The Court ruled the deed of sale valid. While spousal consent is generally required for alienation of conjugal real property under Article 166 of the Civil Code, the wife's refusal was unreasonable under the specific circumstances. The sale was for a legitimate purpose—to fund life-saving medical treatment—and only involved the husband's share, leaving the wife's share intact.
  2. The Court held that the conjugal partnership is liable for the husband's medical expenses pursuant to Article 161(1) of the Civil Code. The "benefit" to the partnership need not be pecuniary; the health and well-being of a spouse inherently benefit the partnership.

• Spousal Consent for Alienation of Conjugal Property (Art. 166, Civil Code) — The husband cannot alienate conjugal real property without the wife's consent, but if she refuses unreasonably, the court may compel her. The Court applied this by finding Estela's refusal unreasonable given the husband's dire medical need and her lack of justification.
• Conjugal Partnership Liability (Art. 161, Civil Code) — The conjugal partnership is liable for debts contracted by the husband for its benefit. The Court interpreted "benefit" broadly to include obligations necessary for the health and sustenance of a spouse, as the partnership's interests are tied to the spouses' well-being.

• "The benefit required by this article need not be quantified into pesos or square meters of real property. It is enough that the transaction would result to some discernible advantage or good to the conjugal partnership, directly or indirectly. Thus, the health and well-being of both or either of the spouses would undeniably redound to the benefit of their conjugal partnership." — This passage establishes the rationale for holding the conjugal partnership liable for medical expenses.
• "It was therefore Amadeo's understandable human spirit to live longer that induced him to execute the deed of sale without the consent of the petitioner." — This underscores the Court's view of the husband's motive as justifying the exception to the consent rule.

• Sumulong v. Cembrano, 51 Phil. 719 — Cited by the Court of Appeals and upheld by the Supreme Court for the principle that the support of a spouse is a charge upon the conjugal partnership, even if the spouses are not living together.

• Article 166, Civil Code — Provides the general rule requiring the wife's consent for the husband's alienation of conjugal real property and the exception when consent is unreasonably withheld.
• Article 161(1), Civil Code — Makes the conjugal partnership liable for debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the partnership.
• Article 171, Civil Code — Cited by the Court of Appeals, authorizes the husband to dispose of conjugal property for purposes specified in Articles 161 and 162.
• Article 173, Civil Code — Noted by the Court, provides the wife's remedy to annul contracts entered into by the husband without required consent within a prescriptive period.

• N/A (The decision was unanimous with a complete division of five Justices concurring.)

• N/A (No dissenting opinion is recorded.)