A sale of conjugal property made after the effectivity of the Family Code, without the written consent of the other spouse, is void, and the action to declare its inexistence does not prescribe; the heirs of the non-consenting spouse can bring such action.

Sabina Tarroza sold a 358-square meter lot to her son, Tarciano T. Roca, in 1982. Tarciano did not immediately transfer the title to his name. In 1988, Tarciano, who was estranged from his wife Rosario Gabriel Roca, offered to sell this lot to petitioners Manuel and Leticia Fuentes. The property was conjugal, acquired during Tarciano and Rosario's marriage in 1950.

• On October 11, 1982, Sabina Tarroza sold a lot to her son, Tarciano T. Roca, who was married to Rosario Gabriel Roca since 1950.
• In 1988, Tarciano offered to sell the lot to petitioners Manuel and Leticia Fuentes (Fuentes spouses).
• An agreement to sell dated April 29, 1988, was prepared by Atty. Romulo D. Plagata, requiring Tarciano to secure the consent of his estranged wife, Rosario, within six months. The Fuentes spouses paid a P60,000.00 down payment.
• Atty. Plagata claimed he obtained Rosario's signature on an affidavit of consent in Manila on September 15, 1988, but notarized it in Zamboanga City on January 11, 1989.
• On January 11, 1989, Tarciano executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of the Fuentes spouses, who paid an additional P140,000.00. A new title was issued to the Fuentes spouses, who then constructed a building on the lot.
• Tarciano died on January 28, 1990, and Rosario died nine months later.
• In 1997, respondents Conrado G. Roca, Annabelle R. Joson, Rose Marie R. Cristobal (children of Tarciano and Rosario), and Pilar R. Malcampo (Tarciano's sister, represented by her son) (collectively, the Rocas), filed an action for annulment of sale and reconveyance, alleging Rosario's signature on the affidavit of consent was forged.
• Both parties presented handwriting experts with conflicting opinions on the authenticity of Rosario's signature.

• Rosario validly consented to the sale, as evidenced by the affidavit of consent.
• The claim of forgery was personal to Rosario and could only be invoked by her.
• The action to nullify the sale on the ground of fraud had already prescribed, as the four-year prescriptive period from the discovery of fraud (deemed from the registration of the sale in 1989) had lapsed by 1997.
• Even if Rosario's consent was not obtained, only she could bring an action to annul the sale, and her death extinguished this right.
• They acted in good faith in purchasing the property and constructing improvements.

• Rosario's signature on the affidavit of consent was forged, rendering the sale void for lack of spousal consent.
• The sale involved conjugal property, and Rosario's consent was indispensable.
• Their action for annulment of sale and reconveyance had not prescribed.
• As heirs of Rosario, they have the right to seek the annulment of the void sale.

• Whether or not Rosario's signature on the affidavit of consent to the sale of the conjugal property was forged.
• Whether or not the Rocas' action for the declaration of nullity of the sale had prescribed.
• Whether or not only Rosario, the wife whose consent was not obtained, could bring the action to annul the sale.

• The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's finding that Rosario's signature on the affidavit of consent was forged, noting the visible variance between the questioned signature and her specimen signatures, and the falsified jurat by Atty. Plagata.
• The Court ruled that the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988, governs the sale made on January 11, 1989. Under Article 124 of the Family Code, the disposition of conjugal property without the written consent of the other spouse is void.
• An action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe, pursuant to Article 1410 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the Rocas' action filed in 1997 had not prescribed.
• The sale being void from the beginning, the property remained conjugal property of Tarciano and Rosario. Upon their deaths, their heirs (the Rocas) acquired ownership rights and could bring an action to declare the sale void and recover the property.
• The Fuentes spouses were deemed possessors in good faith and builders in good faith. They are entitled to recover the P200,000.00 purchase price with legal interest from Tarciano's estate (the Rocas). They are also entitled to indemnity for the useful improvements introduced on the property, with a right of retention until reimbursed, or the Rocas may opt to oblige them to pay the price of the land.

• Conjugal Partnership of Gains (under the Family Code) — A regime of property relations where the husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits, and income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance. The Family Code, specifically Article 124, requires the written consent of the other spouse or court authority for the disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property; otherwise, the disposition is void. This was applied because the sale occurred in 1989, after the Family Code's effectivity, making the absence of Rosario's authentic consent render the sale void, not merely voidable as under the Civil Code.
• Void Contracts (Article 1409, Civil Code) — Contracts whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy; or those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious; or those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction; or those whose object is outside the commerce of men; or those which contemplate an impossible service; or those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal object of the contract cannot be ascertained; or those expressly prohibited or declared void by law. Such contracts cannot be ratified and produce no effect. This was applied because the sale of conjugal property without the wife's consent under the Family Code is declared void by law.
• Imprescriptibility of Action for Declaration of Inexistence of Contract (Article 1410, Civil Code) — The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. This was applied to rule that the Rocas' action to declare the sale void was not barred by the lapse of time, as the sale was void ab initio due to the lack of valid spousal consent under the Family Code.
• Builder in Good Faith (Article 448, Civil Code) — One who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title. The owner of the land on which anything has been built in good faith shall have the right to appropriate the works after payment of indemnity, or to oblige the builder to pay the price of the land. The builder has the right of retention until indemnified. This was applied to the Fuentes spouses, who were found to have purchased the land and built on it in good faith, relying on the notarized documents. They are entitled to indemnity for the improvements.
• Effect of Falsified Jurat/Defective Notarization — While a defective notarization merely strips a document of its public character and reduces it to a private instrument, a falsified jurat, especially when coupled with other evidence of forgery of a signature, can doom the document's validity as proof of consent. In this case, Atty. Plagata's admission that he falsified the jurat (stating Rosario signed in Zamboanga City when he claimed she signed in Manila) contributed to the finding that Rosario's consent was not authentically obtained.
• Succession (Article 979, Civil Code) — Legitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants. This was implicitly applied as the Rocas, being heirs of Tarciano and Rosario, inherited the property which, due to the void sale, remained part of the conjugal estate and subsequently, their inheritance.

• "In contrast to Article 173 of the Civil Code, Article 124 of the Family Code does not provide a period within which the wife who gave no consent may assail her husband's sale of the real property. It simply provides that without the other spouse's written consent or a court order allowing the sale, the same would be void."
• "Under the provisions of the Civil Code governing contracts, a void or inexistent contract has no force and effect from the very beginning... A void contract is equivalent to nothing and is absolutely wanting in civil effects. It cannot be validated either by ratification or prescription."
• "Art. 1410. The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe."
• "As possessor in good faith, the Fuentes spouses were under no obligation to pay for their stay on the property prior to its legal interruption by a final judgment against them. What is more, they are entitled under Article 448 to indemnity for the improvements they introduced into the property with a right of retention until the reimbursement is made."

• Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank v. Miguela C. Dailo, G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005, 453 SCRA 283 — Cited to support the principle that Family Code provisions apply to conjugal partnerships established before its effectivity, without prejudice to vested rights, particularly regarding the disposition of conjugal property requiring spousal consent.

• Family Code, Article 105 — States that provisions of Chapter 4 (Conjugal Partnership of Gains) shall apply to conjugal partnerships already established before the Family Code's effectivity, without prejudice to vested rights. This was relevant in determining that the Family Code, not the Civil Code, governed the 1989 sale.
• Family Code, Article 124 — Provides that disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property requires the written consent of the other spouse or court authority, and in its absence, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. This was the central provision used to declare the sale void.
• Family Code, Article 254 — States that the Family Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. This supports the application of the Family Code to the pre-existing marriage's property relations.
• Civil Code, Article 165 — (Mentioned in discussing the old law) Made the husband the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership under the Civil Code.
• Civil Code, Article 166 — (Mentioned in discussing the old law) Prohibited the husband from selling commonly owned real property without his wife's consent under the Civil Code; such sale was merely voidable.
• Civil Code, Article 173 — (Mentioned in discussing the old law and contrasted with the Family Code) Gave the wife the right to have a sale made without her consent annulled during the marriage within ten years from the date of sale under the Civil Code.
• Civil Code, Article 429 — States that the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. This supported the Rocas' right, as heirs and lawful owners, to recover the property.
• Civil Code, Article 448 — Governs the rights of a builder in good faith, allowing the landowner to appropriate improvements after paying indemnity or to compel the builder to buy the land. This was applied to grant rights to the Fuentes spouses for their improvements.
• Civil Code, Article 526 — Defines a possessor in good faith as one who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. This was used to classify the Fuentes spouses as possessors in good faith.
• Civil Code, Article 546 — Details the necessary and useful expenses to be refunded to a possessor in good faith, with a right of retention for useful expenses. This was cited for the options available to the Rocas regarding the improvements made by the Fuentes spouses.
• Civil Code, Article 1391 — (Mentioned by RTC) Prescribes a four-year period for actions to annul contracts based on fraud, from the time of discovery. The Supreme Court found this inapplicable as the ground was lack of consent rendering the contract void, not fraud.
• Civil Code, Article 1409 — Enumerates void and inexistent contracts. This was cited as the basis for the contract being void.
• Civil Code, Article 1410 — States that the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. This was crucial for finding that the Rocas' action was timely.