HEIRS OF IGNACIA AGUILAR- good faith and that the sale was valid
REYES, petitioners, vs. spouses cipriano because it was duly approved by the court.
mijares and florentina
mijares, respondents. Vicente Reyes, on the other hand, contended
that what he sold to the spouses was
only his share in Lot No. 4349-B-2,
excluding the share of his wife, and that he
FACTS: The controversy stemmed from a never represented that the latter was
dispute over a Lot approximately 396 square already dead.
meters located in Balintawak, Quezon City
He likewise testified that respondent
and registered in the name of Spouses
spouses, through the counsel they provided
Vicente Reyes and Ignacia Aguilar-
him, took advantage of his illiteracy by filing
Reyes.
a petition for the issuance of letters of
Said lot and the apartments built thereon administration and appointment of guardian
were part of the spouses' conjugal properties without his knowledge.
having been purchased using conjugal funds
RTC /- rendered a decision declaring the
from their garments business.
sale of Lot No. 4349-B-2 void with
Vicente and Ignacia were married in 1960, respect to the share of Ignacia.
but had been separated de facto since 1974.
Ignacia filed a motion for modification of the
Ignacia learned that Vicente sold the Lot to decision praying that the sale be declared
respondent spouses Cipriano and Florentina void in its entirety and that the respondents
Mijares for P40K. be ordered to reimburse to her the rentals
they collected on the apartments.
As a consequence thereof, the title was
cancelled and TCT No. 306087 was issued on The trial court modified its decision by
April 19, 1983 in the name of respondent declaring the sale void in its entirety
spouses(VENDEE). and ordering Vicente Reyes to
reimburse respondent spouses the
She likewise found out that Vicente filed purchase price of P110,000
a petition for administration and
appointment of guardian with the Both Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes and
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. respondent spouses appealed the
decision to the Court of Appeals.
Vicente misrepresented therein that his wife, Pending the appeal, Ignacia died and
Ignacia, died and that he and their 5 minor she was substituted by her compulsory
children were her only heirs. heirs.
The court appointed Vicente as the guardian Undaunted by the denial of their motion for
of their minor children. Subsequently, the reconsideration, petitioners (HEIRS OF
court authorized Vicente to sell the estate of IGNACIA) filed the instant petition
Ignacia. contending that the assailed sale of Lot No.
4392-B-2 should be annulled because
Ignacia, through her counsel, sent a letter to respondent spouses were not purchasers in
respondent spouses demanding the return of good faith.
her ½ share in the lot. Failing to settle the
matter amicably, Ignacia filed a complaint Issues:
for annulment of sale against respondent
spouses. The complaint was thereafter (1) What is the status of the sale of Lot No.
amended to include Vicente Reyes as one of 4349-B-2 to respondent spouses?
the defendants.
(2) Assuming that the sale is annullable,
In their answer, respondent spouses should it be annulled in its entirety or only
claimed that they are purchasers in with respect to the share of Ignacia?
(3) Are respondent spouses purchasers in 2. The Court correctly annulled the voidable
good faith? sale of lot in its entirety.
Ruling: In Bucoy v. Paulino, a case involving the
annulment of sale with assumption of
1. Articles 166 and 173 of the Civil Code, the mortgages executed by the husband without
governing laws at the time the assailed sale the consent of the wife, it was held that the
was contracted, provide: alienation or encumbrance must be
annulled in its entirety and not only
Art.166. Unless the wife has been declared insofar as the share of the wife in the
a non compos mentis or a spendthrift, or is conjugal property is concerned. Although
under civil interdiction or is confined in a the transaction in the said case was declared
leprosarium, the husband cannot alienate or void and not merely voidable, the rationale
encumber any real property of the conjugal for the annulment of the whole transaction is
partnership without the wifes consent. If she the same thus
refuses unreasonably to give her consent,
the court may compel her to grant the same The plain meaning attached to the plain
language of the law is that the contract, in
Art. 173. The wife may, during the marriage its entirety, executed by the husband
and within ten years from the transaction without the wife's consent, may be annulled
questioned, ask the courts for the annulment by the wife.
of any contract of the husband entered into
without her consent, when such consent is 1. The Court finds that respondent
required, or any act or contract of the spouses are not purchasers in good
husband which tends to defraud her or faith.
impair her interest in the conjugal
partnership property. Should the wife fail to A purchaser in good faith is one who buys
exercise this right, she or her heirs after the property of another, without notice that
dissolution of the marriage, may demand the some other person has a right to, or interest
value of property fraudulently alienated by in, such property and pays full and fair price
the husband. for the same, at the time of such purchase,
or before he has notice of the claim or
Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, the interest of some other persons in the
husband could not alienate or encumber property.
any conjugal real property without the
consent, express or implied, of the wife He buys the property with the belief that the
otherwise, the contract is voidable. person from whom he receives the thing was
the owner and could convey title to the
In the case of Heirs of Christina Ayuste v. property. A purchaser cannot close his eyes
Court of Appeals,33 it was categorically held to facts which should put a reasonable man
that “There is no ambiguity in the wording of on his guard and still claim he acted in good
the law. A sale of real property of the faith.
conjugal partnership made by the husband
without the consent of his wife is voidable.” In the instant case, there existed
circumstances that should have placed
The action for annulment must be brought respondent spouses on guard. The
during the marriage and within ten years discrepancy in Ignacia's death certificate and
from the questioned transaction by the wife. Ignacia's failure to give her conformity in the
Where the law speaks in clear and sale. The spouses should have verified all the
categorical language, there is no room for documents first as they had all the
interpretation there is room only for opportunity to do so.
application.
