Jader-Manalo vs. Camaisa

A contract for the disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property is void without the written consent of the other spouse, and judicial authorization cannot be invoked to validate the transaction unless the withholding spouse is incapacitated.

Petitioner responded to a newspaper advertisement for the sale of conjugal properties owned by respondent spouses. Negotiations ensued between petitioner and the husband, resulting in handwritten and typewritten contracts to sell and the delivery of downpayment checks. The wife participated in a clarificatory meeting but ultimately refused to sign the contracts, demanding "spot cash." The husband returned the downpayment, which petitioner accepted before filing suit.

• The Negotiation: Petitioner expressed interest in purchasing two properties advertised by respondent spouses. Through a real estate broker, petitioner and respondent Edilberto Camaisa agreed on a purchase price and installment terms. Edilberto signed a handwritten agreement and received downpayment checks.
• The Typewritten Contracts: Petitioner prepared typewritten Contracts to Sell, which Edilberto signed. The contracts were to be given to respondent Norma Camaisa for her signature.
• The Wife's Refusal: Norma requested a meeting to clarify contract provisions. After handwritten notations were made, a subsequent meeting was held for her formal signature. Instead of signing, respondent spouses backed out, demanding "spot cash" for the full purchase price. Norma refused to sign the contracts.
• The Return of Payment: Edilberto returned the downpayment checks to petitioner, who accepted them without objection.
• The Subsequent Action: Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance to compel Norma to sign the contracts.

• Propriety of Summary Judgment: Petitioner maintained that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding whether the contracts were perfected, precluding summary judgment.
• Perfection of the Contract: Petitioner argued that the contracts were already perfected because the parties agreed on the price, object, and terms of payment, and the wife's objections were limited to minor provisions implied by law.
• Consensual Nature of Sale: Petitioner asserted that the contract of sale is consensual and perfected by mere consent, invoking various Civil Code provisions and the Statute of Frauds.
• Court Authorization: Petitioner contended that court authorization under Article 124 of the Family Code was warranted because the wife unjustly refused to affix her signature.

• Conditional Agreement: Respondents countered that the agreement between petitioner and Edilberto was expressly subject to the approval and conformity of Norma.
• Lack of Consent: Respondent Norma denied participating in the negotiations or giving her consent and conformity to the sale.
• Acceptance of Returned Payment: Respondents argued that petitioner's acceptance of the returned downpayment checks signified her assent to the cancellation of the sale.

• Summary Judgment: Whether the trial court properly rendered a summary judgment despite petitioner's claim of a genuine issue of fact.
• Validity of the Contract: Whether the contracts to sell involving conjugal properties were perfected and valid despite the wife's lack of written consent.
• Court Authorization: Whether court authorization under Article 124 of the Family Code may be granted when the wife unjustly refuses to sign the contract.

• Summary Judgment: The summary judgment was affirmed. No genuine issue of material fact existed, as both parties admitted the core facts: negotiations occurred, the husband signed and received downpayment, and the wife refused to sign. The only issue was legal: the validity of the contract without the wife's consent.
• Validity of the Contract: The contracts were void. Article 124 of the Family Code mandates the written consent of the wife for the disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property; mere awareness of the transaction does not constitute consent.
• Court Authorization: Judicial authorization was denied. Court authorization under Article 124 is available only when the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated; it cannot be invoked merely because the spouse refuses to consent.

• Written Consent for Disposition of Conjugal Property — Under Article 124 of the Family Code, the disposition or encumbrance of conjugal partnership property requires the written consent of the other spouse; absent such consent, the disposition is void. The transaction is construed only as a continuing offer that may be perfected upon the other spouse's acceptance or court authorization before the offer is withdrawn.
• Mere Awareness is Not Consent — A spouse's knowledge or awareness of a transaction involving conjugal property does not equate to the written consent required by law for its validity.
• Limitation on Court Authorization — Judicial authorization to dispose of or encumber conjugal property in lieu of spousal consent is available only when the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated or unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties.

• "However, being merely aware of a transaction is not consent." — Emphasizing the distinction between knowledge of a sale and the written consent required by Article 124 of the Family Code.
• "However, it should be stressed that court authorization under Art. 124 is only resorted to in cases where the spouse who does not give consent is incapacitated." — Limiting the application of judicial intervention when a spouse refuses to sign a contract involving conjugal property.

• Tinitigan vs. Tinitigan, 100 SCRA 619 (1980) — Cited for the proposition that mere awareness of a transaction involving conjugal property does not constitute the written consent required by law.
• Nicolas vs. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 635 (1987) — Followed for the doctrine that the absence of the wife's consent to the disposition of ganancial property, absent a showing of her legal incapacity, renders the sale void ab initio.

• Article 124, Family Code — Governs the administration and disposition of conjugal partnership property. Applied to invalidate the contracts to sell because the wife's written consent was not obtained, and court authorization was unavailable absent her incapacity.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.