G.R. No. 169900 March 18, 2010 MARIO SIOCHI, Petitioner, vs. ALFREDO GOZON, WINIFRED GOZON,
GIL TABIJE, INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC., and ELVIRA GOZON, Respondents.
FACTS:
This case involves a 30,000 sq.m. parcel of land (property) covered by TCT No. 5357. The property is situated in Malabon, Metro Manila and is registered in the name of "Alfredo Gozon (Alfredo), married to Elvira Gozon (Elvira)."
On 23 December 1991, Elvira filed with the Cavite City Regional Trial Court (Cavite RTC) a petition for legal separation against her husband Alfredo. On 2 January 1992, Elvira filed a notice of lis pendens, which was then annotated on TCT No. 5357.
On 31 August 1993, while the legal separation case was still pending, Alfredo and Mario Siochi (Mario) entered into an Agreement to Buy and Sell (Agreement) involving the property for the price of P18 million. Among the stipulations in the Agreement were that Alfredo would secure an Affidavit from Elvira that the property is Alfredo’s exclusive property and to annotate the Agreement at the back of TCT No. 5357, etc. However, despite repeated demands from Mario, Alfredo failed to comply with these stipulations.
ISSUE:
Whether the sale is valid
RULING:
This case involves the conjugal property of Alfredo and Elvira. Since the disposition of the property occurred after the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the Family Code. Article 124 of the Family Code provides:
Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to the recourse to the court by the wife for a proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
The absence of the consent of one of the spouse renders the entire sale void, including the portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the spouse who contracted the sale. Even if the other spouse actively participated in negotiating for the sale of the property, that other spouse’s written consent to the sale is still required by law for its validity. As regards Mario’s contention that the Agreement is a continuing offer which may be perfected by Elvira’s acceptance before the offer is withdrawn, the fact that the property was subsequently donated by Alfredo to Winifred and then sold to IDRI clearly indicates that the offer was already withdrawn.
among the effects of the decree of legal separation is that the conjugal partnership is dissolved and liquidated and the offending spouse would have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership. It is only Alfredo’s share in the net profits which is forfeited in favor of Winifred.
Under Article 125 of the Family Code, a conjugal property cannot be donated by one spouse without the consent of the other spouse.
FACTS:
This case involves a 30,000 sq.m. parcel of land (property) covered by TCT No. 5357. The property is situated in Malabon, Metro Manila and is registered in the name of "Alfredo Gozon (Alfredo), married to Elvira Gozon (Elvira)."
On 23 December 1991, Elvira filed with the Cavite City Regional Trial Court (Cavite RTC) a petition for legal separation against her husband Alfredo. On 2 January 1992, Elvira filed a notice of lis pendens, which was then annotated on TCT No. 5357.
On 31 August 1993, while the legal separation case was still pending, Alfredo and Mario Siochi (Mario) entered into an Agreement to Buy and Sell (Agreement) involving the property for the price of P18 million. Among the stipulations in the Agreement were that Alfredo would secure an Affidavit from Elvira that the property is Alfredo’s exclusive property and to annotate the Agreement at the back of TCT No. 5357, etc. However, despite repeated demands from Mario, Alfredo failed to comply with these stipulations.
ISSUE:
Whether the sale is valid
RULING:
This case involves the conjugal property of Alfredo and Elvira. Since the disposition of the property occurred after the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the Family Code. Article 124 of the Family Code provides:
Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to the recourse to the court by the wife for a proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
The absence of the consent of one of the spouse renders the entire sale void, including the portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the spouse who contracted the sale. Even if the other spouse actively participated in negotiating for the sale of the property, that other spouse’s written consent to the sale is still required by law for its validity. As regards Mario’s contention that the Agreement is a continuing offer which may be perfected by Elvira’s acceptance before the offer is withdrawn, the fact that the property was subsequently donated by Alfredo to Winifred and then sold to IDRI clearly indicates that the offer was already withdrawn.
among the effects of the decree of legal separation is that the conjugal partnership is dissolved and liquidated and the offending spouse would have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership. It is only Alfredo’s share in the net profits which is forfeited in favor of Winifred.
Under Article 125 of the Family Code, a conjugal property cannot be donated by one spouse without the consent of the other spouse.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment