EDUARDO FELIPE, HERMOGENA V. FELIPE AND VICENTE V.

FELIPE, petitioners,
vs.
HEIRS OF MAXIMO ALDON, NAMELY: GIMENA ALMOSARA, SOFIA ALDON,
SALVADOR ALDON, AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Facts:

Maximo Aldon married Gimena Almosara in 1936. The spouses bought several pieces of land in
1948-1950. In 1960-1962, said lands were partitioned into 3 lots. In 1951, the wife sold the lots
to the petitioners without the consent of her husband. In April 26, 1976, the heirs of Aldon (wife
and children) filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that they had orally mortgaged the
said properties to the Felipe’s and that an offer to redeem the properties was made but they
refused. RTC ruled in favor of Felipe, declaring that they were the rightful owners of the lots in
question. CA reversed the decision on the ground that the sale instituted by the wife was invalid
since the properties were conjugal in nature and that the sale was done without the husband’s
consent.

Issue:

WON the sale of properties in question was valid without the consent of the husband?

Held:

The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership (Art. 165 NCC). Subject to certain
exceptions, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal
partnership without the wife’s consent (Art. 166 NCC). And the wife cannot bind the conjugal
property without the husband’s consent, except in cases provided by law (Art. 172 NCC). In the
instant case, the wife’s sale is not covered by the phrase “except in cases provided by law.” The
sale is invalid, void or voidable? VOIDABLE, according to Art. 1390 NCC, among the voidable
contracts are “those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to the contract (Par.
1). The wife had no capacity to give consent to the contract of the sale. The capacity belonged
not to the husband alone but to both spouses. This is further supported by the provision that
contracts entered by the husband without the consent of the wife when such consent is required,
are annullable at her instance during the marriage and within 10 years from the transaction
questioned (Art. 173 NCC). The voidable contract of the wife was subject to annulment by her
husband only during the marriage because he was the victim who had an interest in the contract.
The wife, who was the party responsible for the defect, could not ask for its annulment. Their
children could not likewise seek the annulment of the contract while the marriage subsisted
because they merely had an inchoate right to the lands sold. The termination of the marriage and
the dissolution of the conjugal partnership by the death of Maximo Aldon did not improve the
situation the wife. After the death of their father, they acquired the right to question the defective
contract insofar as it deprived them of their hereditary rights in their father’s share in the lands.
The father's share is one-half (1/2) of the lands and their share is two-thirds (2/3) thereof, one-
third (1/3) pertaining to the widow. The Felipes were purchasers of bad faith as revealed in a
testimony that sometime in December 1970, Vicente Felipe (son of the petitioners) attempted to
have the wife (Gimena)sign a ready-made document claiming the sale of the land to them. If sale
was valid, why did they need a document of sale in their favor. Because they knew the lots still
did not belong to them.