Heirs of Christina Ayuste vs. Court of Appeals and Viena Malabonga

A sale of conjugal real property by the husband without the wife's consent is voidable, not void, and the wife's action for annulment under Article 173 of the Civil Code must be brought during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction.

Christina Ayuste and Rafael Ayuste were spouses married on September 24, 1961. Their marriage was governed by the Civil Code regime on conjugal partnership property, under which the husband administers the conjugal partnership but cannot alienate or encumber conjugal real property without the wife's consent, subject to statutory exceptions. Article 173 of the Civil Code supplies the wife's remedy for a husband's disposition of conjugal property without her consent.

Christina Ayuste married Rafael Ayuste on September 24, 1961. Although the couple resided in Manila, they operated a machine shop in Barangay Iyam, Lucena City, which Rafael managed. To provide Rafael with a temporary residence while in Lucena, the couple purchased on August 26, 1982 a 180-square-meter parcel of land with a residential house at Yale Street, University Village, Barrio Ibabang Dupay, Lucena City from spouses Pedro and Aida David. A deed of sale was executed and signed by the parties and filed with the Register of Deeds of Lucena City. On October 23, 1983, the Register of Deeds issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-42972 in the name of "RAFAEL T. AYUSTE, married to Christina Ayuste."

On February 27, 1987, Rafael Ayuste executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Viena Malabonga, selling the parcel to her for P40,000, which amount he acknowledged having received in the deed. On page 2 of the deed appears the signature of Christina Ayuste below the phrase "With my conformity." The deed of sale was registered with the Register of Deeds of Lucena City on March 5, 1987, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-50046 was issued in Viena Malabonga's name.

After Rafael Ayuste died on October 13, 1989, Christina Ayuste discovered during an inventory of their properties that the title to the Lucena land was missing. She searched for it in her husband's office in Lucena City and learned from her employees about the sale of the house and lot by her husband to Viena Malabonga.

On March 2, 1990, Christina Ayuste filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City for annulment of the sale, cancellation of the title issued in Viena Malabonga's name, and payment of moral, exemplary, and actual damages. In her complaint, she alleged that her signature on the deed of sale was forged and that Rafael Ayuste sold the property without her knowledge and consent.

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals established that Rafael Ayuste sold conjugal property without the consent of Christina Ayuste. The Supreme Court treated this as a factual finding that would not be disturbed in an appeal under Rule 45, because only questions of law are reviewed subject to well-defined exceptions, none of which were present.

• Nullity under Article 1409: Petitioners claimed that because the law expressly prohibits the husband from alienating real property belonging to the conjugal partnership without the wife's consent, the contract of sale is a nullity pursuant to Article 1409 of the Civil Code, which provides that contracts expressly prohibited by law are inexistent and void from the beginning.
• Non-prescription of nullity action: Petitioners averred that the action to declare the nullity of a contract does not prescribe, so the present action is not barred.
• Lack of knowledge and concealment: Petitioners contended that Christina Ayuste could not be faulted for bringing the action only after her husband's death, despite the periods stated in Article 173 of the Civil Code, because she had no knowledge of the sale during his lifetime as he concealed it from her.
• Relevant provision: Petitioners argued that Article 166 is the relevant provision, not Article 173.

• Validity of the Sale: Whether the sale of conjugal real property executed by Rafael Ayuste without Christina Ayuste's consent is void under Article 1409 of the Civil Code or voidable under the Civil Code.
• Timeliness of Annulment Action: Whether Christina Ayuste's action for annulment was barred because it was not filed during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction under Article 173 of the Civil Code.

• Validity of the Sale: Voidable, not void. Under Article 173, a sale of conjugal real property by the husband without the wife's consent is voidable; the wife's remedy is annulment.
• Timeliness of Annulment Action: Barred. Article 173 requires the action to be brought during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction; the complaint was filed after Rafael Ayuste's death, so the first period was not met.

• Validity of the Sale: Under the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership (Article 165) but cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife's consent (Article 166), subject to exceptions (Articles 171, 161, and 162). Petitioners argued that the sale was void under Article 1409 because it was expressly prohibited by law. The Court rejected this, reasoning that Article 173 expressly grants the wife the remedy of annulment for a contract of the husband entered into without her consent when such consent is required. The wording of Article 173 is unambiguous; a sale of conjugal real property by the husband without the wife's consent is voidable, not void. The Court cited Felipe vs. Heirs of Maximo Aldon and Reyes vs. De Leon for this rule, while noting in a footnote that Garcia vs. Court of Appeal and Tolentino vs. Cardenas had held such a sale void under Article 166.
• Timeliness of Annulment Action: Article 173 provides that the wife may, during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent when such consent is required, or any act or contract tending to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. Both periods must concur. The deed of sale was executed on February 27, 1987, and Rafael Ayuste died on October 13, 1989, dissolving the marriage. Christina Ayuste filed her complaint only on March 2, 1990. Although the action was filed within ten years from the transaction, it was not brought during the existence of the marriage. The action was therefore barred for having been filed out of time. Christina's claim that she learned of the sale only after her husband's death was immaterial because registration of the deed with the Register of Deeds on March 5, 1987 constituted notice to the whole world; she was presumed to have constructive notice from that date. The purpose of the registration system is to afford publicity so that persons dealing with real property may search the records and acquire security against instruments whose execution has not been revealed to them.

• Voidable Sale of Conjugal Real Property Without Wife's Consent — Under the Civil Code, the husband as administrator cannot alienate or encumber conjugal real property without the wife's consent, subject to statutory exceptions. A sale made without such consent is voidable, not void; the wife's remedy is annulment under Article 173. The Court applied this to hold that Rafael Ayuste's sale to Viena Malabonga was voidable and did not fall under Article 1409's void contracts.
• Concurrence of Periods Under Article 173 — The wife may, during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction, ask the courts for annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent when such consent is required, or any act or contract tending to defraud her or impair her interest in conjugal partnership property. Both periods must concur. If the wife fails to exercise the right, she or her heirs, after dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband. The Court applied this to bar Christina's action because it was filed after Rafael's death.
• Constructive Notice Through Registration — Registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds constitutes notice to the whole world. The purpose of the registration system is to afford publicity so that persons dealing with real property may search the records and acquire security against instruments whose execution has not been revealed to them. The Court applied this to presume Christina had constructive notice of the sale from March 5, 1987, making her lack of actual knowledge immaterial.
• Clear and Categorical Language Rule — Where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation; there is room only for application. The Court applied this to Article 173, declining to interpret it contrary to its plain terms.

• "The wife may, during the marriage, and within ten years from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent, when such consent is required, or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs, after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband." — This is the Court's quotation of Article 173, which supplies the wife's remedy and the periods that the Court found mandatory.
• "There is no ambiguity in the wording of the law. a sale of real property of the conjugal partnership made by the husband without the consent of his wife is voidable." — This states the ratio decidendi on the nature of the sale: it is voidable, not void.
• "The action for annulment must be brought during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction by the wife." — This is the controlling formulation of the concurrence requirement that barred Christina Ayuste's complaint.
• "Since the deed of sale was registered on March 5, 1987, Christina Ayuste is presumed to have constructive notice of the sale from such date." — This applies the registration-as-notice rule and explains why Christina's lack of actual knowledge did not excuse her delay.

• Felipe vs. Heirs of Maximo Aldon, 120 SCRA 628 (1983) — Cited for the rule that a sale of conjugal real property by the husband without the wife's consent is voidable and that the action for annulment must be brought during the marriage and within ten years.
• Reyes vs. De Leon, 20 SCRA 369 (1967) — Cited with Felipe for the voidable character of the sale.
• Garcia vs. Court of Appeal, 130 SCRA 433 (1984) and Tolentino vs. Cardenas, 123 Phil 517 (1966) — Cited in footnote 14 as contrary rulings holding that, under Article 166, a sale made by the husband without the wife's consent is void; the Court did not adopt this view.
• Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 276 (1997) — Cited for the rule that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, only application.
• Olizon vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 148 (1994) — Cited for the rule that registration constitutes notice to the whole world.

• Article 165, Civil Code — Provides that the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. The Court cited it as the starting point for the husband's power over conjugal property.
• Article 166, Civil Code — Provides that unless the wife has been declared non compos mentis or a spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or confined in a leprosarium, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife's consent; if she refuses unreasonably, the court may compel her consent. The Court cited it to establish the consent requirement.
• Article 173, Civil Code — Provides that the wife may, during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent when such consent is required, or any act or contract tending to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property; if she fails, she or her heirs, after dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband. The Court applied it to hold the sale voidable and the action time-barred.
• Article 1409, Civil Code — Invoked by petitioners to argue that contracts expressly prohibited by law are inexistent and void from the beginning. The Court did not apply it because the sale was voidable under Article 173, not void.
• Article 126, Family Code — Cited in footnote 17 in connection with the dissolution of the marriage upon the death of Rafael Ayuste.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Cited as the basis for the petition and for the rule that only questions of law are reviewed, subject to well-defined exceptions. The Court applied it to decline review of the factual finding that the sale was made without Christina's consent.
• Articles 171, 161, and 162, Civil Code — Cited in footnote 13 as exceptions to the husband's inability to alienate or encumber conjugal real property without the wife's consent.

Melo, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concurred. Vitug, J., submitted a concurring opinion, which is not included in the source text.