Persons and Family Relations- Sale of a Conjugal Property

DOLORES ALEJO VS. SPS. ERNESTO CORTEZ AND PRISCILLA SAN PEDRO, SPS.
JORGE LEONARDO AND JACINTA LEONARDO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF BULACAN
GR No. 206114 June 19, 2017

Tijam, J.:

Facts:
The heart of the controversy is the property belonging to the conjugal property/absolute
community of property of the respondent Spouses Jorge and Jacinta Leonardo (Spouses
Leonardo) and upon which their residential house was built. Jacinta executed a Kasunduan with
Dolores, sister of Leonardo, for the sale of the property for Php 500, 000. Under the Kasunduan,
Dolores was to pay Php 70,000 as down payment, while Php 230,000 is to be paid on April 30,
1996 and the remaining balance of PhP200, 000 was to be paid before the end of the year 1996.
The Kasunduan was signed by Jacinta and Ricardo (father of Jorge) as witnesses. Jorge,
however, did not sign the agreement. Jorge wrote a letter to Dolores denying knowledge and
consent to the Kasunduan. This was followed by another letter dated September 29, 1996 from
Jorge to Dolores demanding that the latter pay the balance of Php 200,000. Otherwise, the
purchase price shall be increased to Php 700,000.

Issue:

Whether or not the Kasunduan is a perfected and binding contract accepted by Jorge
through his overt acts.

Ruling:

No. Sale by one spouse of conjugal real property is void without the written consent of
the other spouse. Any alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property made during the
effectivity of the Family Code is governed by Article 124 thereof which provides:

Article 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong
to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to
recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years
from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the
administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of
administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the
court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the
disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a
continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected
as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court
before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. The law is therefore unequivocal when it
states that the disposition of conjugal property of one spouse sans the written consent of the other
is void. Here, it is an established fact that the Kasunduan was entered into solely by Jacinta and
signed by her alone. By plain terms of the law therefore, the Kasunduan is void. Neither can
Jorge's subsequent letters to Dolores be treated as a ratification of the Kasunduan for the basic
reason that a void contract is not susceptible to ratification.

Fallo:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October 3, 2012 and
Resolution dated February 26, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 95432 which
(1) declared void the Kasunduan dated 29 March 1996; (2) declared valid the title issued in the
names of Spouses Cortez and San Pedro; (3) ordered the reimbursement of PhP300,000 with
legal interest to Dolores Alejo; (3) ordered the Spouses Leonardo, at their option, to indemnify
Dolores Alejo of her expenses on the useful improvements or pay the increase in value on the
subject property, with retention rights until indemnity is made; and ( 4) remanded the case to the
RTC for purposes of receiving evidence and determining the amount of said indemnity are
AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.
Land Titles and Deeds- Application for Registration

CONRADO R. ESPIRITU, JR., ET AL. VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No. 219070 June 21, 2017

Mendoza, J.:

Facts:

The petitioners filed before the RTC an Application for Registration of Title to Land
covering a parcel of land located at Barangay La Huerta, Parafiaque City, Metro Manila.
Petitioners alleged that they inherited the subject land after their parents passed away; and that
they, by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, public, and
continuous possession of the subject land in the concept of owner for more than thirty (30) years.
During the trial, the petitioners presented a certification issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources-National Capital Region (DENRNCR) stating that the
subject land was part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain. In addition to the
testimonies of their witnesses, the petitioners also presented in evidence several tax declarations
covering the subject land issued by the Parafiaque City Treasurer's Office stating that the real
property tax for the subject land had been fully settled up to year 2010.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioners application for registration of title should be granted.

Ruling:

No. The rule is that applicants for land registration bear the burden of proving that the
land applied for registration is alienable and disposable. In this regard, the applicant for land
registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and
released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of
the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by
the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, he must also present a copy of the original classification
approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the
official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and
disposable.

In this case, during the proceedings before the RTC, to prove the alienable and disposable
character of the subject land, the petitioners presented the DENR-NCR certification stating that
the subject land was verified to be within the alienable and disposable part of the public domain.
This piece of evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption of State ownership. As
already discussed, the present rule requires the presentation, not only of the certification from the
CENRO/PENRO, but also the submission of a copy of the original classification approved by the
DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.

Fallo:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The March 20, 2015 Decision and June 18,
2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101002 are AFFIRMED. The
petitioners' application for original registration of title of Lot No. 4178 in LRC Case No. 10-0026
is DENIED, without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.
Property- Forcible Entry

LORETA SAMBALILO, ET AL. VS. SPS. PABLO LLARENAS AND FE LLANERAS

GR No. 222685 June 21, 2017

Mendoza, J.:

Facts:

A complaint for forcible entry, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction, filed by Spouses Pablo Llarenas and Fe Llarenas
(Sps.Llarenas) against Loreta Sambalilo and her children, Salvador, Zoilo, Jr., and Renante (the
Sambalilos). Sps. Llarenas were the owners of a parcel of land located in Barrio Matobato,
Calbayog City, having acquired it by purchase under a deed of Sale from the), late husband of
petitioner Loreta.