Scribd
Upload
174 views3 pages

Villaranda vs. Villaranda

ALIENATION OR ENCUMBRANCE OF REAL PROPERTY OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP Villaranda vs. Villaranda G.R. No. 153447, February 23, 2004

Uploaded by

Katherine Mae Bautista-Perez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
174 views3 pages

Villaranda vs. Villaranda

ALIENATION OR ENCUMBRANCE OF REAL PROPERTY OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP Villaranda vs. Villaranda G.R. No. 153447, February 23, 2004

Uploaded by

Katherine Mae Bautista-Perez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

ALIENATION OR ENCUMBRANCE OF REAL PROPERTY OF CONJUGAL

PARTNERSHIP
Villaranda vs. Villaranda
G.R. No. 153447, February 23, 2004

DOCTRINE: "Article 166. Unless the wife has been declared a non compos
mentis or a spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a
leprosarium, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of
the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. x x x

"Article 173. 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, or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her
or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. Should the wife
fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs, after the dissolution of the
marriage, may demand the value of the property fraudulently alienated by
the husband

FACTS:

A 471-square-meter parcel of land was left to the two brothers,


petitioner Vicente Villaranda and private respondent Honorio Villaranda and
their eight other siblings by their parents. Estate Administrator Bebiano
Luminarias leased 124 square meters of the property to Honorio starting on
May 1, 1976, until May 31, 1986. Vicente, on the other hand, inherited
64.22 square meters of the property that had not been leased to Honorio.

On July 6, 1976, the two brothers executed the assailed Deed of


Exchange. Under this instrument, Vicente agreed to convey his 64.22-
square-meter portion to Honorio, in exchange for a 500-square-meter
property. After the execution of the Deed, Honorio took possession of the
64.22-square-meter lot and constructed a building thereon. Years later, on
April 6, 1992, a subdivision plan was completed, in pursuit of which TCT for
the 64.22 square-meter share of Vicente was issued in his name. The other
heirs were issued their own TCTs for their respective shares. Honorio and his
wife, respondent Ana Maria Villaranda, then brought an action for specific
performance before the RTC to compel Vicente to comply with his obligations
under the Deed of Exchange. The spouses alleged that they could not fully
use or dispose of their Macasandig property, because Vicente had yet to
identify and delineate his undivided 500- square-meter portion of the
property. They asked the court to compel him to do so, as well as to convey
to them the 64.22-square-meter lot, in compliance with his obligations under
the Deed. During the pendency of the case, Honorio conditionally sold the lot
to Colorhouse Laboratories, Inc. Vicente did not deny that he had entered
into the Deed of Exchange with Honorio.

ISSUE:

Is the Deed of Exchange which was not signed by the wife of


respondent Honorio Villaranda null and void?

RULING:

NO. The Deed was entered into on July 6, 1976, while the Family Code
took effect only on August 3, 1998. Laws should be applied prospectively
only, unless a legislative intent to give them retroactive effect is expressly
declared or is necessarily implied from the language used. Hence, the
provisions of the Civil Code, not the Family Code, are applicable to the
present case. The Macasandig lot was part of Honorio and Ana’s conjugal
properties. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code on the disposition of real
properties of the conjugal partnership are the following:

"Article 166. Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis
or a spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium,
the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal
partnership without the wife’s consent. x x x

"Article 173. 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, or any act or contract of the husband which tends to
defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property.
Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs, after the
dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of the property
fraudulently alienated by the husband."

According to Article 166, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any


real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. This
provision, however, must be read in conjunction with Article 173 of the same
Code. The latter states that an action to annul an alienation or encumbrance
may be instituted by the wife during the marriage and within ten years from
the transaction questioned. Videlicet, the lack of consent on her part will not
make the husband’s alienation or encumbrance of real property of the
conjugal partnership void, but merely voidable. Hence, the Deed is valid
until and unless annulled.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy