Barred

In the sale of a conjugal property, the lack of consent of a spouse has a different effect depending on whether the sale was made before or after the effectivity of the Family Code. This is illustrated in this case of the spouses Manny and Nena.

In 1958 Manny was awarded a parcel of land with an area of 520.20 square meters as part of the government’s housing program at the time. Title to the said property (TCT 107534) was issued in the name of Manny and Nena on May 23, 1966 after full payment for the property was received by the government housing authority then known as the PHHC.

Even with the issuance of the title, neither Manny or Nena or their children took possession of the property. It was Atty. Placido and his children who took possession of said property in 1966 and are in actual physical possession of it up to the present. The owner’s duplicate copy of the title over the property given by the PHHC to Manny was also in the possession of Atty. Placido who had made considerable improvements thereon including the residential house where his family presently resides. The realty taxes had been paid by Atty. Placido although in the name of Manny, but all the official receipts of tax payments are kept by Atty. Placido.

In April 1983, Manny died and it was only after his burial that Nena and her two children found out that in 1982, TCT 107534 was already cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No 2909121 was issued in the name of the eldest child of Atty. Placido who then started paying the taxes thereon.

Upon diligent inquiry, Nena and her children discovered that the cancellation of TCT 107534 in favor of TCT 2909121 was based on three sets of documents: (1) Irrevocable Special Power of Atty. dated February 14, 1963 executed by Manny and Nena in favor of Dolly appointing the latter as their attorney-in-fact with express power to sign, execute and acknowledge any contract of disposition of said property; (2) a similar irrevocable power of attorney executed by Dolly in favor of Atty. Placido together with a Deed of Absolute Sale wherein Dolly sold the property to Atty. Placido. It was by virtue of these documents that Atty. Palcido subsequently transferred TCT No. 107534 which was in his possession, to his daughter in whose favor TCT No. 2909121 was issued.

As it turned out, Manny assigned his rights to the property to Dolly when he could no longer comply with the monthly installment. And Dolly in turn sold her rights to Atty. Placido who transferred the title to his daughter as he was already in possession of the TCT 107534 issued in name of his daughter. But Nena did not know or consent to the same and that her signatures were forged especially the Special Power of Attorney in favor of Dolly where the forgery was so blatant as to be remarkably noticeable to the naked eye.

But it was only on February 11, 1995, after consulting several lawyers, when Nena and her children filed a complaint against Atty. Placido and his daughter as well as Dolly and the Register of Deeds seeking the annulment of the TCT and all its derivative titles and the re-conveyance of the property to them. They contended that Nena’s lack of consent rendered the SPAs and the deeds of assignment and sale null and void or inexistent and actions for for declaration of non-existence of a contract does not prescribe. Were they correct?

No. The provision declaring as void any alienation or encumbrance made by the husband without the wife’s consent is found in the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. All the events and transactions in this case occurred before the Family Code (FC) took effect. So the provisions of the New Civil Code (NCC) not the FC still govern these transactions.

Under Article 173 of the NCC, 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… The plain meaning of the phrase “may be annulled by the wife” is that such alienation is not void but only annullable or voidable; and that the action must be filed during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction in question.

In this case, Manny died in April 1983 thereby terminating his marriage with Nena. On the other hand the transactions in this case happened in 1963 and 1964 while the transfer of the title in the name of Atty. Placido’s daughter occurred in 1982. So the action filed by Nena and her children in 1995 was no longer during the marriage and within 10 years from the transactions in question.

Considering that Nena failed to exercise her right to file the annulment of sale within the prescribed period, she is now barred from questioning the validity thereof or for questioning the validity of the subsequent transfers from Dolly to Atty. Placido and from the latter to her daughter. Therefore title to the property can no longer be re-conveyed to her by reason of prescription and laches (Heirs of Hernandez, Sr. vs. Mingoa, Sr., G.R.146548, December 18, 2009 608 SCRA 394).

* * *

E-mail:[email protected]