Nobleza vs. Nuega

A spouse cannot validly dispose of property belonging to the absolute community without the written consent of the other spouse or court authority; such disposition is void ab initio and affects the entire property, not merely the share of the non-consenting spouse. Moreover, a buyer cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser for value by merely relying on the Transfer Certificate of Title while ignoring surrounding circumstances that should have prompted further inquiry, such as warnings from the seller's spouse and irregularities in the execution of the deed.

Rogelio A. Nuega and Shirley B. Nuega were married on September 1, 1990. Prior to their marriage, while Shirley was working as a domestic helper in Israel and Rogelio was engaged to her, she remitted funds totaling P150,000.00 to Rogelio for the purchase of a residential lot in Marikina City where they planned to build their home. On September 13, 1989, Rogelio purchased the house and lot from Rodeanna Realty Corporation for P102,000.00, with Shirley settling the balance through SSS financing upon her return. Despite Shirley's financial contribution, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 171963 was issued on October 19, 1989, solely in Rogelio's name. After their marriage, the couple lived in the subject property until Shirley returned to work in Israel in 1991. While Shirley was overseas, Rogelio committed concubinage by bringing another woman, Monica Escobar, into their home and introducing her as his wife. This led Shirley to file a petition for legal separation and a criminal complaint for concubinage in June 1992. During the pendency of these cases, Rogelio sold the subject property to their neighbor Josefina V. Nobleza on December 29, 1992, without Shirley's knowledge or consent.

• Shirley and Rogelio Nuega were married on September 1, 1990, after having been engaged since 1988.
• While engaged and working as a domestic helper in Israel beginning in 1988, Shirley remitted a total of P150,000.00 to Rogelio for the purchase of a residential lot in Marikina City where they planned to build their home.
• On September 13, 1989, Rogelio purchased the house and lot from Rodeanna Realty Corporation for P102,000.00, with Shirley settling the balance through SSS financing upon her return to the Philippines in 1989.
• Transfer Certificate of Title No. 171963 was issued on October 19, 1989, solely in Rogelio's name, describing him as "single."
• After their marriage, the couple lived in the subject property until Shirley returned to Israel for work in 1991.
• In 1992, Shirley learned that Rogelio had brought Monica Escobar into their home and was introducing her as his wife.
• In June 1992, Shirley filed a criminal complaint for concubinage and a petition for legal separation and liquidation of property before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.
• Shirley warned neighbors at Ladislao Diwa Village, including petitioner's sister Hilda Bautista, not to engage in any transaction with Rogelio regarding the property because of the pending cases.
• On December 29, 1992, Rogelio executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with petitioner Josefina Nobleza for P380,000.00, without Shirley's knowledge or consent.
• The Deed of Absolute Sale contained irregularities: it was dated December 29, 1992, but the Community Tax Certificates of the witnesses were dated January 2 and 20, 1993; additionally, Rogelio's civil status was not stated in the deed while petitioner's was indicated as "single."
• On May 16, 1994, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig granted the legal separation and ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the absolute community property, enjoining Rogelio from selling or disposing of any community property.
• On August 27, 1996, Shirley filed a Complaint for Rescission of Sale and Recovery of Property against petitioner and Rogelio before the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City.
• The trial court ruled in favor of Shirley, rescinding the sale as to the 55.05 square meters representing Shirley's one-half share and ordering reconveyance or payment of market value.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale void in its entirety and ordering reconveyance of the entire property to the spouses Nuega, without prejudice to petitioner's right to recover from Rogelio whatever amount she paid.

• Petitioner claims she is a buyer in good faith and for value because she relied on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 171963 which showed Rogelio as the sole registered owner and described him as "single."
• She argues that she is not required to go beyond the face of the title to verify the status of the property or the capacity of the seller.
• She denies that Shirley gave any warning to her or her sister regarding the pending cases against Rogelio, arguing that such alleged warning could not be construed as notice to her.
• She contends that the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the trial court's decision by declaring the sale void in its entirety instead of only the one-half portion belonging to Shirley, asserting that Rogelio could validly sell his own share in the property.

• Respondent argues that petitioner is not a buyer in good faith because she failed to exercise the due diligence and prudence required of an ordinary person, such as verifying the seller's capacity and inquiring into the property's status despite her sister's proximity to the property.
• She maintains that she had warned neighbors, including petitioner's sister, about the pending cases and cautioned them against purchasing the property.
• She argues that the property formed part of their absolute community of property, and under Article 96 of the Family Code, Rogelio could not validly sell it without her written consent, making the entire sale void rather than merely voidable as to her share.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Supreme Court may review factual findings of lower courts regarding petitioner's status as a buyer in good faith in a petition for review on certiorari limited to questions of law.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether petitioner qualifies as an innocent purchaser for value despite relying solely on the Transfer Certificate of Title and ignoring surrounding circumstances.
  • Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Rogelio without Shirley's written consent is void in its entirety or merely void as to Shirley's share in the absolute community property.

• Procedural: The Supreme Court held that it is not within its province to second-guess the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding petitioner's lack of good faith, as the re-determination of factual issues is beyond the reach of a petition for review on certiorari where only questions of law may be reviewed. The Court found no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings that petitioner had notice of the pending cases and failed to exercise due diligence.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that petitioner is not a buyer in good faith because a buyer cannot claim such status by merely relying on the Transfer Certificate of Title while ignoring surrounding circumstances that should have prompted further inquiry, such as the irregularities in the deed and the warnings from Shirley. The Court further held that the subject property formed part of the absolute community of property under Article 91 of the Family Code because it was acquired before marriage and was not excluded under Article 92. Under Article 96 of the Family Code, the disposition of community property without the written consent of the other spouse or court authority is void, not merely voidable, and affects the entire property, not just the share of the non-consenting spouse. Consequently, the Deed of Absolute Sale is void in its entirety. Shirley cannot be held liable to petitioner for reimbursement of the purchase price because there was no evidence that the proceeds redounded to the benefit of the family under Article 94 of the Family Code.

• Innocent Purchaser for Value — Defined as one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price is paid. The burden of proving this status rests on the buyer, who must demonstrate prudence and due diligence by verifying title, checking with the Register of Deeds, inquiring into the civil status of the seller, and investigating surrounding circumstances, rather than merely relying on the face of the title.
• Absolute Community of Property — Under Article 91 of the Family Code, all property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter forms part of the community property, except those excluded under Article 92 or by marriage settlement. Property acquired before marriage by either spouse is included in the absolute community regardless of actual contribution.
• Void Disposition of Community Property — Article 96 of the Family Code provides that the powers of administration do not include powers of disposition or encumbrance without the written consent of the other spouse or court authority. In the absence of such consent or authority, the disposition or encumbrance is void ab initio, rendering the entire transaction invalid, not merely the portion corresponding to the share of the non-consenting spouse.

• "An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price is paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or before receipt of any notice of claims or interest of some other person in the property."
• "It is the party who claims to be an innocent purchaser for value who has the burden of proving such assertion, and it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith."
• "A buyer cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser for value by merely relying on the TCT of the seller while ignoring all the other surrounding circumstances relevant to the sale."
• "In absolute community of property, if the husband, without knowledge and consent of the wife, sells (their) property, such sale is void. The consent of both the husband Rogelio and the wife Shirley is required and the absence of the consent of one renders the entire sale null and void including the portion of the subject property pertaining to defendant Rogelio who contracted the sale with defendant-appellant Josefina."

• Spouses Raymundo v. Spouses Bandong — Cited to establish that a buyer cannot hide behind the cloak of being an innocent purchaser for value by merely relying on the Transfer Certificate of Title when surrounding circumstances should have put her on guard regarding possible defects in the seller's title.
• Arrofo v. Quiño — Cited for the principle that while the law does not require a person dealing with registered land to inquire further than what the Torrens Title indicates, the rule is not absolute, and failure to take necessary precautions required of a prudent man negates the claim of being an innocent purchaser for value.
• Quiao v. Quiao — Cited for the rule that when a couple enters into a regime of absolute community, the husband and wife become joint owners of all properties of the marriage, and when the community is dissolved, the common mass is divided equally regardless of the value each one originally owned.
• Potenciano v. Reynoso — Cited for the rule that the burden of proving status as an innocent purchaser for value rests on the buyer, and it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith.
• Sia Tio, et al. v. Abayata, et al. — Cited for the standard of prudence required of a buyer in good faith as that of an average man who weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibration of technical rules of evidence.
• PNB v. Heirs of Estanislao and Deogracias Militar — Cited for the requirement that a buyer must exercise due diligence, conduct investigation, and weigh surrounding facts and circumstances like what any prudent man in a similar situation would do.

• Article 91 of the Family Code — Defines what constitutes community property (all property owned at the time of marriage or acquired thereafter, unless otherwise provided).
• Article 92 of the Family Code — Enumerates properties excluded from the community property, including property acquired before marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage.
• Article 96 of the Family Code — Provides that administration and enjoyment of community property belongs to both spouses jointly, and that powers of disposition or encumbrance without written consent of the other spouse or court authority are void.
• Article 94 of the Family Code — States that the absolute community is liable for debts contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other only to the extent that the family may have been benefited.
• Article 63 of the Family Code — Cited regarding the effects of legal separation, including the dissolution and liquidation of the community property.