Useless each without the other

Can the husband as administrator dispose of the conjugal property without the wife’s consent? This is the question answered in this case of the spouses Bert and Naty.

The conjugal properties involved here were four parcels of land in Makati City and Taytay together with the improvements erected thereon which were advertised for sale in the newspaper by Bert and Naty’s real estate broker. One of those responding to said ad was Nora who negotiated with the couple for their purchase after inspecting the properties with the broker and examining the documents. After some bargaining in the presence of Naty and the broker, Ben and Nora agreed upon the purchase price of P1.5 million for the Taytay property and P2.1 million for the Makati property to be paid in installment after a down payment of P100,000 and P200,000 respectively.

The agreement was handwritten by Nora and signed by Bert only but with the assurance that his wife will sign the formal documents. The formal typewritten Contracts to Sell were thereafter prepared by Nora and following day, she and the broker met with Bert at the latter’s office for the formal signing of the typewritten contracts to sell. After Bert signed the formal contracts Nora already paid the down payments. The contracts were then given to Bert for the affixing of his wife’s signature.

When Nora met with the spouses again together with the broker at Bert’s office for the formal affixing of Naty’s signature, Naty refused to sign despite Nora’s insistence that the contract was already perfected because down payments were already made. Apparently the couple would like spot cash instead of installment payments. So Nora sued the couple for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

In a summary judgment based on the pleadings and admissions of the parties, the RTC dismissed Nora’s complaint on the ground that under Article 124 of the Family Code (FC), the contract must have the written consent of Naty and it cannot intervene to authorize the transaction in the absence of such consent since Naty was not incapacitated. Was the RTC correct?

Yes. The law (Art.124, FC) requires that the disposition of conjugal properties by the husband as administrator in appropriate cases requires the written consent of the wife otherwise, the disposition is void. In this case the properties subjects of the contracts were conjugal, so the consent of both Bert and Naty must concur for said contracts to be effective.

Even granting that Naty actively participated in the negotiations for the sale of said properties, her written consent to the sale is still required by law for its validity. Being merely aware of the transaction is not consent.

If the written consent of the wife as in this case cannot be obtained or is being withheld, the court may indeed give such authority to the sale but this is only in cases where the wife or the spouse who refuses to give consent is incapacitated. Here, it was alleged or proven that Naty was incapacitated (Jader-Manalo vs. Camaisa, G.R. 147978, January 25, 2002, 374 SCRA 498).

Note: Books containing my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law, Vols. I and II, are available at 403 Sunrise Condominium Ortigas Ave. Greenhills, S.J. Tel 7249224.

*  *  *

Our new e-mail address: [email protected]