Go vs Go Petitioners: Heirs of Protacio Go, Sr and Marta Barola Respondents: Ester L. Servacio and Rito B.

Go Ponente: Bersamin September 7, 2011 Note: The marriage in this case was celebrated under the Civil Code. o Inferred: Marta Go died November 1987, so it is safe to presume that it was celebrated under CC. (just in case maam ask)

Doctrine: Disposition by sale of a portion of the conjugal property by the surviving spouse without the prior liquidation is not necessarily void. If the said property was allocated to the surviving spouse upon liquidation, the disposition will be valid, if not, it shall be void. There is no reason to invalidate a sale of a property that will eventually become his.

return of the land in claiming that upon the renunciation of Protacio Jr, the property becomes conjugal and not sole property of Protacio Sr. The respondents countered by saying that Protacio Sr owned it exclusively since he bought it with his own money. RTC ruled that the property is conjugal because of the presumption that, unless proven otherwise, all properties acquired during the marriage are conjugal. But nonetheless, RTC affirmed the validity of the contract for in Tolentinos comment in Art 175 CC (now the said comment is under Art 126 FC): The alienation, mortgage or disposal of the conjugal property without the required formality (dissolution), is not however null ab initio, for the law recognizes their validity so long as they do not exceed the portion which, after liquidation and partition, should pertain to the spouse who made the contract.

Issue: WoN Art 1301 FC should be the applicable law. NO

Facts: Jesus Gaviola sold two parcels of lands to Protacio Go Jr, but eventually Protacio Jr renounced his ownership of the land to his father Protacio Go Sr, who actually bought the land (probably confused name) The wife of Protacio Sr (Marta Barola) died and he, together with his son Rito and his wife, sold a portion of the land to Ester Servacio. The petitioners (heirs of Protacio Sr, and Marta Barola), demanded the Ratio:

Art 105 FC states that the provisions of Title IV of FC (Property Relations Between Husband and Wife) shall be effective to CPG established between Husband and Wife before the Family Code.

Petitioners wants Art 130 to apply to render the sale void since it was contracted prior to liquidation. The respondents argue that Art 130 does not apply since the property sold was within the portion entitled to them as heirs.

But for the FC provisions to be effective, the CPG must be subsisting at the time of the effectivity of FC CPG was dissolved upon Martas death in November 1987, prior to FC (Aug 3, 1988) Ordinary co-ownership must ensue, Art 493 CC provides each co-owner full ownership of his part and allows him to alienate, assign or mortgage, and even substitute another person for its enjoyment. But the effect should be limited in the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. This should apply in the case at hand. Protacio Sr may only have an abstract idea of his portion of Martas estate, but nonetheless he could sell his undivided share, unless it exceed to the interest of his co-owners (other heirs). The sale, even without the consent of other co-owners, does not render it void, the rights of the of the selling coowners were effectively transferred thus affirming the validity of the sale.

Ruling: Petition Denied. RTC decision Affirmed. Sale is valid.

JIO