[G.R. No. 125172.

June 26, 1998]

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

FACTS:
While the private respondent is in Manila seeking for employment, her husband
over her objections pushed through the sale of the remaining one-half portion of their lot
and the house standing thereon as evidenced by a document known as Deed of
Transfer of Rights. Private respondent filed an amended complaint against her
husband and petitioners-spouses Guiang which sought the declaration of the said sale
null and void. The RTC rendered a decision declaring the Deed of transfer of rights as
null and void and of no effect. Dissatisfied, petitioners-spouses filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeals. However the latter affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE:
Will the absence of the consent of one of the spouses to the sale of a conjugal
property render the sale null and void or merely voidable?
HELD:
The petition is bereft of merit.
The sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the husband and the
wife. The absence of the consent of one renders the sale null and void, while the
vitiation thereof makes it merely voidable. Only in the latter case can ratification cure
the defect. In sum, the nullity of the contract of sale is premised on the absence of
private respondents consent. To constitute a valid contract, the Civil Code requires the
concurrence of the following elements: (1) cause, (2) object, and (3) consent, the last
element being indubitably absent in the case at bar.

[G.R. No. 125888. August 13, 1998]

SPOUSES ERNESTO and EVELYN SICAD, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CATALINO
VALDERRAMA, JUDY CRISTINA M. VALDERRAMA and JESUS ANTONIO VALDERRAMA,
respondents
FACTS: