Cheeseman vs IAC private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or

associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

1. Thomas Cheesman and Criselda P. Cheesman were married on December 4, 1970 but
4. In any event, he had and has no capacity or personality to question the subsequent
have been separated since February 15,1981
sale of the same property by his wife on the theory that in so doing he is merely
2. 1974, a deed of sale was made in favor of Criselda, married to Thomas (Olongapo)
exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of conjugal property. To sustain
3. Thomas Cheesman, although aware of the deed, did not object to the transfer, tax
such a theory would permit indirect controversion of the constitutional prohibition. If
declarations being made only to his wife
the property were to be declared conjugal, this would accord to the alien husband a
4. July 1981, Criselda sold the properrt to Padilla without the knowledge and consent of
not insubstantial interest and right over land, as he would then have a decisive vote
Thomas
as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the Constitution does not permit
5. Thomas filed a suit at the CFI praying for the annulment of the sale on the ground that
him to have.
the transaction had been executed without his knowledge and consent
6. Criselda alleged that the property was paraphernal (bought with her funds exclusively)
and Thomas, being an American is disqualified from owning lands, and Padilla was a
buyer in good faith
7. CFI declared sale void ab intio
8. Padilla filed a petition opposing the judgment grounded on "fraud, mistake and/or
excusable negligence"
9. CFI held that the sale was valid
a. presumption in Article 160 CC has been overcome by evidencethat all property
of the marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership "unless it be proved that it
pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife"and that the immovable in
question was in truth Criselda's paraphernal property;
b. presumption in Article 160 could not apply "inasmuch as the husband-plaintiff is
an American citizen and therefore disqualified under the Constitution to acquire
and own real properties
c. the exercise by Criselda of exclusive acts of dominion with the knowledge of her
husband "had led . . . Estelita Padilla to believe that the properties were the
exclusive properties of Criselda Cheesman and on the faith of such a belief she
bought the properties from her and for value," and therefore, Thomas Cheesman
was, under Article 1473 of the Civil Code, estopped to impugn the transfer to
Estelita Padilla.
10. IAC affirmed

WON property in Conjugal NO, PARAPHERNAL

WON sale was valid

1. It was already found by the CFI and IAC that the funds used by Criselda Cheesman was
money she had earned and saved prior to her marriage to Thomas Cheesman, and
that Estelita Padilla did believe in good faith that Criselda Cheesman was the sole
owner of the property in question.
2. Factual findings of the lower courts are conclusive
3. the fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land. Section 14, Article
XIV of the 1973 Constitution ordains that, "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
Frenzel vs Catito
1. Frenzel is an Australian citizen and married Teresita Santos in 1974. In 1981, they
separated in fact. He then met Ederlina Calito, a woman married to a German.
2. They set up a beauty parlor at Ermita Manila, under her name and the property was
from a lawyer who transferred his rights, which Alfred paid
3. Alfred then bought a house in QC, and named it after Ederlina because he was
prohibited from owning lands, after all, he knew he would be marrying her after
4. He transferred to her bank account all his money (HSBC HK)
5. One day, Klaus wrote to Alfred and asked him to leave Ederlina alone and that they
had been married since 1978. She admitted but said she was planning to divorce him.
So he paid for her lawyer
6. Alfred again purchased 2 lands and a beach house in Davao under her name
7. The beach house was rented out by her father and rentals were collected by him
8. Her 2 petitions for divorce were denied
9. Klaus wanted half of Ederlinas properties and threatened to file a bigamy case against
her
10. Alfred and Ederlina separated. He demanded the return of all the properties he bought
11. Alfred filed a complaint with the RTC for the return of his properties and money. She
was declared in default (HSBC money, Ermita and QC property)
12. He also filed for specific performance, declaration of ownership of real and personal
properties, sum of money, and damages. (properties worth P724k- all in Davao)
13. Ederlina denied the allegations and said it was acquired by her with her personal
funds, the receipts were all made out in her name
14. 1st one was granted, 2nd one was dismissed (because he was disqualified from owning
lands as an alien- in pari delicto) CA affirmed (he had no intention of owning the lands
as he was disqualified, rather only as a transient owner)
WON he is entitled to the lands NO
1. 1973 Constitution, Art. 14 Sec. 14: Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands in the public domain
2. Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring
lands of the public domain. Hence, they have also been disqualified from acquiring
private lands. Even if the sales were entered into him as the real vendee, said
transactions are void.
3. The petitioner, being a party to an illegal contract, cannot come into a court of law
and ask to have his illegal objective carried out.
4. Under Article 1412 of the New Civil Code, the petitioner cannot have the subject
properties deeded to him or allow him to recover the money he had spent for the
purchase thereof.
5. Cannot also claim damages because of the illegality of contract, and in pari delicto
Villaranda vs Villaranda
1. Without the wifes consent, the husbands alienation or encumbrance of conjugal
property prior to the effectivity of the Family Code is not void, but merely voidable
2. A land in Divisoria, Cagayan was left to Villaranda siblings. The brothers subsequently
executed a deed of exchange, where Vicente agreed to convey his portion to Honorio
for his other land in Cagayan, where Honorario built a building on
3. Then, a subdivision plan was completed and Vicente was issued a TCT for his share
4. Honorio and wife Ana filed an action for specific performance to compel Vicente to
comply with the Deed of Exchange
5. Honorio then sold Divisoria lot to Colorhouse Laboratories
6. Vicente argues that he was not bound by the deed because the other property was
not delivered, and the agreement was already revoked by the parties
7. CA held that the CC is applicable not the FC, so because said agreement was entered
into without the wifes signature, said is voidable not void. But since the wife knew
about the deed without filing any action within 10 years and the fact that she filed
with her husband the action, presupposes her knowledge of the deed; Honorio only
acquired Americal citizenship after the deed and aliens who lost citizenship can still
acquire private lands- VALID
8. Vicente appealed
WON the deed was valid YES
1. Vicente cited the FC and several cases to point that the contract is void because
Honorios wife, Ana, did not sign the document
2. Honorio argues that the absence of Anas signature does not prove lack of consent,
and such is only voidable not void
3. The deed was entered into in July 6, 1976, before the FCs enactment.
4. 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.
5. CC 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 wifes consent.
6. Article 173- 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.
7. no evidence that any action to annul the transfer made by Honorio was ever brought
by Ana within ten years from "the transaction questioned." Her right to bring an action
to invalidate the contract has thus prescribed. Hence, the assailed Deed is still valid
and enforceable.
8. And if voidable can only be annulled by the spouse who did not give consent, not
Vicente