The RMOA executed by the husband H to sell the conjugal property to B and the subsequent contract to sell executed by the wife W for her portion of the property are both void. As the spouses were married before the Family Code, their property relations were governed by the conjugal partnership of gains which requires the written consent of both spouses or court authority to dispose of conjugal property. Prior to liquidation of the partnership, each spouse only has an inchoate interest in the property rather than a legal title, which does not vest until after dissolution and liquidation of the partnership.
The RMOA executed by the husband H to sell the conjugal property to B and the subsequent contract to sell executed by the wife W for her portion of the property are both void. As the spouses were married before the Family Code, their property relations were governed by the conjugal partnership of gains which requires the written consent of both spouses or court authority to dispose of conjugal property. Prior to liquidation of the partnership, each spouse only has an inchoate interest in the property rather than a legal title, which does not vest until after dissolution and liquidation of the partnership.
The RMOA executed by the husband H to sell the conjugal property to B and the subsequent contract to sell executed by the wife W for her portion of the property are both void. As the spouses were married before the Family Code, their property relations were governed by the conjugal partnership of gains which requires the written consent of both spouses or court authority to dispose of conjugal property. Prior to liquidation of the partnership, each spouse only has an inchoate interest in the property rather than a legal title, which does not vest until after dissolution and liquidation of the partnership.
11 Facts: Spouses H and W were married prior to the adoption of the Family Code. They are registered owners of a parcel of land. Armed with a Special Power of Attorney purportedly issued by W (W claims it was falsified), H executed a Receipt and Memorandum of agreement (RMOA) in favor of B, binding himself to sell the property to B and not to offer to others within 30 days. Within 30 days, B informed H & W his willingness to pay the full purchase price. W, executed in favor of B, a Contract to Sell the property to the extent of her conjugal interest for $650K. H and W failed to deliver the property. Issue: Whether or not the RMOA is valid.Whether or not the Contract to Sell executed by W is valid. Ruling: The RMOA and Contract to Sell are not valid. In the absence of a marriage settlement, the system of conjugal partnership of gains governed the relations between H and W as they were married prior to the adoption of the Family Code. By express provision of Article 124 of the Family Code, in the absence of (court) authority or written consent of the other spouse, any disposition or encumbrance of the conjugal property shall be void. Significantly, it has been held that prior to the liquidation of
the conjugal partnership, the interest of each spouse in the
conjugal asset is inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an equitable estate, and does not ripen into title until it appears there are assets in the community as a result of the liquidation and settlement. The interest of each spouse is limited to the net remainder resulting from the liquidation of the affairs of the partnership after its dissolution. Thus, the right of the husband or wife to one-half of the conjugal asset does not vest 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.