G.R. No. 155043 (September 30, 2004)
Topics: Earnest money; Contract of sale
Summary:
Arturo and Esther Abalos are the registered owners of a block of land in Makati City. Arturo signed a receipt and memorandum of agreement (RMOA) in favor of Macatangay. He then informed the couples in a letter that he was prepared to pay the full purchase price.
Esther and Arturo appear to have wed before the Family Code went into effect. Since there is no sign that they have chosen a different system of property ownership, the conjugal partnership of gains system would automatically control their property relations. The law is clear that the wife cannot make any commitments regarding the marriage without the husband’s approval. The administration of the conjugal partnership is now a joint undertaking of the husband and the wife. In the event that one’s spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration, the other spouse may assume sole powers. The power of administration does not include the power to dispose or encumber property belonging to the partnership.
Doctrines:
Under the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. This right is clearly granted to him by law. Moreover, the husband is the sole administrator. The wife is not entitled as of right to joint administration.The husband, even if he is statutorily designated as administrator of the conjugal partnership, cannot validly alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent.Similarly, the wife cannot dispose of any property belonging to the conjugal partnership without the conformity of the husband.
Facts:
The registered owners of a block of land with renovations on Azucena St. in Makati City are spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos. Arturo signed a receipt and memorandum of agreement (RMOA) in favor of Macatangay, binding himself to sell the subject property to Macatangay and not to offer it to any other party within 30 days of the date. Full payment would also be made as soon as Macatangay had been given possession of the property.
Following Esther’s execution of an SPA designating her sister, Bernadette Ramos, to act for and on her behalf with regard to the transfer of the property to the respondent, Macatangay provided an earnest money amounting to P5,000.00 to be deducted from the purchase price of P1,300,000.00 in favor of the spouses.
Following, a marital conflict between Arturo and Esther was in the works at the time, and Macatangay annotated the property’s title to safeguard his interests. He then informed the couples in a letter that he was prepared to pay the full purchase price. Through her SPA, Esther signed a contract to sell the property to the extent of her conjugal interest to Macatangay for P650,000, less the money she and Arturo had already received. Macatangay informed them that he was prepared to pay and set aside the amount of P 1,290,000.00 as evidenced by Citibank Check No. 278107 as full payment. She agreed to turn over the property to him within 20 days along with the deed of absolute sale upon full payment, and he promised to pay the remaining P 1,290,000.00 of the purchase price once in possession of the property. He sued the spouses since the pair didn’t surrender the property.
RTC dismissed the complaint, because the SPA could not have authorized Arturo to sell the property to Macatangay as it was falsified. CA reversed the decision, ruling the SPA in favor of Arturo, assuming it was void, cannot affect the transaction between Esther and Macatangay. On the other hand, the CA considered the RMOA executed by Arturo valid to effect the sale of his conjugal share in the property. Abalos requests a review of the appellate court’s decision because he is unsatisfied with it.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a contract of sale between Arturo Abalos and Galicano Macatangay.
Whether or not the subsequent agreement between Galicano Macatangay and Esther Abalos is binding and whether it cured the defect of the earlier contract between Arturo and Galicano.
Ruling:
Esther and Arturo appear to have wed before the Family Code went into effect. Since there is no sign that they have chosen a different system of property ownership, the conjugal partnership of gains system would automatically control their property relations. The spouses’ conjugal partnership includes the subject land, which was ostensibly acquired during their marriage.
Under the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. This right is clearly granted to him by law. Moreover, the husband is the sole administrator. The wife is not entitled as of right to joint administration. The husband, even if he is statutorily designated as administrator of the conjugal partnership, cannot validly alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. Similarly, the wife cannot dispose of any property belonging to the conjugal partnership without the conformity of the husband.
The law is clear that the wife cannot make any commitments regarding the marriage without the husband’s approval, unless a legal exception applies. The interest of each spouse in the conjugal assets is inchoate, a simple expectancy, which does not create a legal or equitable estate, and it does not mature into title until it seems that there are assets in the community as a result of the liquidation and settlement, which is more significant. The net residual, or “remanente liquido,” (haber ganan), resulting from the liquidation of the partnership’s affairs following its breakup constitutes the exclusive and exclusive property of each spouse. Therefore, until the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership or after the dissolution of the marriage, when it is finally determined that, after settlement of conjugal obligations, there are net assets left which can be divided between the spouses or their respective heirs, the right of the husband or wife to one-half of the conjugal assets does not vest.
The Family Code has introduced some changes particularly on the aspect of the administration of the conjugal partnership. The new law provides that the administration of the conjugal partnership is now a joint undertaking of the husband and the wife. In the event that one’s spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal partnership, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. However, the power of administration does not include the power to dispose or encumber property belonging to the conjugal partnership. In all instances, the present law specifically requires the written consent of the other spouse, or authority of the court for the disposition or encumbrance of conjugal partnership property without which, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void.
Arturo’s attempt at a specific performance will inevitably fail in this situation. Even if the parties just sold their respective portions of the property, the sale would still be invalid because, as was already mentioned, the husband or wife’s entitlement to one-half of the marital assets does not become effective until the dissolution of the conjugal partnership.
Nemo dat qui non habet. No one can give what he has not. The subsequent agreement between Esther and Galicano did not ratify the earlier transaction between Arturo and Galicano. A void contract can never be ratified.