Spouses ANTONIO and LUZVIMINDA GUIANG, petitioners, Vs COURTOF APPEALS and GILDA CORPUZ, Respondents

 Spouses ANTONIO and LUZVIMINDA GUIANG, vs COURT OF APPEALS and GILDA CORPUZ,

Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. (165a)

FACTS:

Spouse Gilda ( private respondent) and Judie Corpuz are legally married. During their marriage they bought a 421 sq. meter lot located at Brgy. Gen. Paulino Santos, Koronadal South Cotabato Which became their conjugal dwelling. They sold one half of the lot to spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang (petitioners).Sometime in March 1990, Gilda went to Manila to find a job in the Middle-East. Being a victim of an illegal recruitment, stayed for some time in manila. In his absence, her husband planned to sell the remaining half of their lot to the Guiang spouses without her consent. Learning of her father’s plans, Harriet, one of her daughters, wrote a letter to Gilda informing the plans of their father. Gilda went home to Cotabato and there she discovered that some of her children are not living in their conjugal dwelling and her husband was nowhere to be found. She then decided to gather her children and stay in their conjugal dwelling where she realized that was already sold by her husband to spouses Guiang. The latter filed a case of trespassing to her before the Barangay Authorities. Then spouses Guiang executed an “amicable settlement” to ratify the deed of transfer of rights regarding the property Gilda filed a case in the RTC declaring the deed of transfer of rights involving the conjugal property of her and her husband null and void for it was executed without her consent. RTC rendered a decision in favor of Gilda declaring the deed of rights and the execution of amicable settlement null and void and of no effect.

Respondents appealed in the CA. CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. Hence the petition.

 

ISSUES:

1. Whether the assailed deed of transfer of rights was a void or a voidable contract

RULING:

1. The Guiang spouses allege that absence of Gilda’s consent merely rendered the Deed voidable under Article 1390 of the Civil Code, which provides:Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties… The error in petitioners’ contention is evident. Article 1390, par. 2 refers to contracts visited by vices of consent, i .e contracts which were entered into by a person whose consent was obtained and vitiated through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.