On closing the sale of conjugal properties

(First of two parts)

“No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent,” said former United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay.

This applies even to marriages, where a person may dispose or encumber properties belonging to the conjugal estate, whether under the regimes of absolute community property (ACP) or conjugal partnership of gains (CPG) as defined under the Family Code, only after having secured the written consent of his spouse. Failure to secure this consent shall render the disposition or encumbrance void.

Jurisprudence is replete with rulings on this matter. For instance, Spouses Anastacio v. Heirs of the Late Spouses Coloma and Parazo involved a parcel of land under a title registered in the name of the deceased Juan Coloma and in which his marriage to the deceased Juliana Parazo is inscribed.

According to their heirs, who are respondents in this case, Juan and Juliana merely tolerated petitioners-spouses Romeo and Norma Anastacio’s possession of this land. Thus, upon their death, Juan and Juliana’s heirs demanded Spouses Anastacio to surrender to them the possession of the land, which the latter refused. This constrained the heirs to file against Spouses Anastacio a case for the recovery of possession and title of the land against the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC).

Spouses Anastacio countered that they owned the subject land by way of a deed of absolute sale allegedly executed by Juan. Based on this allegation, MCTC dismissed the heirs’ case, without prejudice to the filing of another complaint before the proper court.

In view of MCTC’s ruling, the heirs filed a complaint for the annulment of the deed and the recovery of ownership and possession of the subject land before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In their complaint, they alleged that the deed was void, considering that, among others, Juliana did not consent to the alleged sale.

On this ground, Spouses Anastacio argued that Juliana’s consent would not affect the sale since Juan solely owned the subject land, having inherited it from his paternal ancestors and since he and Juliana were separated in fact.

The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Anastacio. Upon appeal, however, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the RTC’s finding. In this regard, the CA held that the subject land was presumably conjugal since it was registered in Juan and Juliana’s names. Moreover, Juan acquired the land not by succession, by virtue of a sale while his marriage to Juliana subsisted. Thus, Juliana’s consent should have been obtained as to the alleged sale of the land to Spouses Anastacio, failure of which rendered it void.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s findings. At the outset, it held that the CPG property regime governed Juan and Juliana’s property relations since they were married in 1965 or before the effectivity of the Family Code in 1988.

Under the CPG regime, properties acquired during the marriage are presumed to be conjugal, unless the contrary is proved. This presumption remains even when the acquisition is made to appear to have been made, contracted, or registered in the name of one spouse. In this case, the heirs laid the predicate for this presumption to arise, which, however, Spouses Anastacio failed to disprove.

Considering the conjugal nature of the subject land, it may only be alienated with Juliana’s consent. Failure to secure this consent rendered the sale void. Moreover, while the sale may be construed as a continuing offer on the part of Juan, as the consenting spouse, and Spouses Anastacio, which may be perfected when Juliana accepts the same, pursuant to the Family Code, this offer became ineffective upon Juan’s death. To be sure, the Civil Code states that an offer becomes ineffective upon the death, civil interdiction, insanity, or insolvency of either party before acceptance is conveyed.

Meanwhile, Juan and Juliana’s separation in fact did not exempt the sale from the requirement of Juliana’s written consent. Juan could have secured the necessary authority from the court, as is stated in the Family Code.

Under the CPG regime, properties acquired during the marriage are presumed to be conjugal, unless the contrary is proved

(To be continued)