LEGAL RESEARCH - Midterm must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse.

ave the 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. . . .
1. Can a sale of a conjugal property be valid without the consent of the other spouse?

Pelayo vs. Perez In applying Article 124 of the Family Code, this Court declared that the absence of the
consent of one renders the entire sale null and void, including the portion of the conjugal
Moreover, under Article 173, in relation to Article 166, both of the New Civil Code, property pertaining to the husband who contracted the sale.
which was still in effect on January 11, 1988 when the deed in question was executed, the
lack of marital consent to the disposition of conjugal property does not make the contract
By express provision of Art 123 of FC, in the absence of court authority or written consent of
void ab initio but merely voidable. Said provisions of law provide:
the other spouse, any disposition or encumbrance of the conjugal property shall be void.
Art. 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
2. When can a conjugal property be held liable for an obligation contracted by either spouse?
property of the conjugal property without the wifes consent. If she
refuses unreasonably to give her consent, the court may compel her to
grant the same. Go v. Yamane

Art. 173. The wife may, during the marriage, and within ten Under the New Civil Code, a wife may bind the conjugal partnership only when she
years from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulment
of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent, when 1.
such consent is required, or any act or contract of the husband which 2.
tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership
property. Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs, 3.
after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of property
fraudulently alienated by the husband.
4.
purchases things necessary for the support of the family, or
when she borrows money for that purpose upon her husband's failure to deliver
the needed sum;
when administration of the conjugal partnership is transferred to the wife by the
courts or by the husband; or
when the wife gives moderate donations for charity.

Hence, it has been held that the contract is valid until the court annuls the same and only Failure to establish any of these circumstances in the present case means that the conjugal
upon an action brought by the wife whose consent was not obtained. asset may not be bound to answer for Muriel's personal obligation.

The lack of marital consent to the disposition of conjugal property does not make the contract
void ab initio but merely voidable. Homeowners Savings v. Dailo

Homeowners v. Dailo Under Article 121 of the Family Code, [T]he conjugal partnership shall be liable for: . . .

ART. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall
(1) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to
belong to both spouses jointly. . . .
the extent that the family may have been benefited; . . . .

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the
Certainly, to make a conjugal partnership respond for a liability that should appertain to the
administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of
husband alone is to defeat and frustrate the avowed objective of the new Civil Code to show
administration. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which
the utmost concern for the solidarity and well-being of the family as a unit.
3. Can a husband sell a property to his wife? To his concubine?
Ching v. Goyanko
ARTICLE 1490. The husband and wife cannot sell property to each other, except:
(1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage settlements;
or
(2) When there has been a judicial separation of property under Article 191.
The proscription against sale of property between spouses applies even to common law
relationships.
Anent the second issue, we find that the contract of sale was null and void for being contrary
to morals and public policy. The sale was made by a husband in favor of a
concubine after he had abandoned his family and left the conjugal home where his
wife and children lived and from whence they derived their support. The sale was
subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy
cherishes and protects.
Article 1409 of the Civil Code states inter alia that: contracts whose cause, object, or
purposes is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy
are void and inexistent from the very beginning.
Article 1352 also provides that: "Contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause, produce no
effect whatsoever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy."
Additionally, the law emphatically prohibits the spouses from selling property to each
other subject to certain exceptions.1wphi1
Similarly, donations between spouses during marriage are prohibited. And this is so
because if transfers or conveyances between spouses were allowed during marriage, that
would destroy the system of conjugal partnership, a basic policy in civil law. It was also
designed to prevent the exercise of undue influence by one spouse over the other, as well as
to protect the institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of family law. The prohibitions
apply to a couple living as husband and wife without benefit of marriage, otherwise,
"the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in
legal union." Those provisions are dictated by public interest and their criterion must be
imposed upon the will of the parties. . . .
4. Is it necessary for a consent of one spouse to a sale of a conjugal property be explicit?
5. Will the conjugal nature of a property be destroyed if the registration shows only one of the
spouses?
Go vs. Yamane
- the mere registration of a property in the name of one spouse does not destroy its
conjugal nature.
- Hence, it cannot be contended in the present case that, simply because the title
and the Deed of Sale covering the parcel of land were in the name of Muriel alone,
it was therefore her personal and exclusive property.
"x x x. We are unable to go along with [petitioners'] contention that the subject property was
acquired by Muriel with her exclusive funds. Mere registration of the contested property in the
name of the wife is not sufficient to establish the paraphernal nature of the property. This
reminds Us of the teaching in the recent case of Diancin v. Court of Appeals, that all the
property acquired by the spouses, regardless of in whose name the same is registered,
during the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership of gains, unless it is
proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. To quote:
"As a general rule, all property acquired by the spouses, regardless of in whose name the
same is registered, during the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership of
gains, unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. In the case
at bar, the fishpond lease right is not paraphernal having been acquired during the coverture
of the marriage between Matilde and Tiburcio, which was on April 9, 1940. The fact that the
grant was solely in the name of Matilde did not make the property paraphernal property. What
was material was the time the fishpond lease right was acquired by the grantee, and that was
during the lawful existence of Matilde's marriage to Tiburcio.
6. On preponderance of evidence
 - to rebut the presumption of the conjugal nature of the property, petitioners must
present clear and convincing evidence.
- "x x x [T]his presumption is rebuttable, but only with strong, clear and convincing
evidence. The burden of proving that the property belongs exclusively to the wife
rests upon the party asserting it. Mere assertion of the property's paraphernal
nature is not sufficient."
- "The record as well as the foregoing established jurisprudence lead us to conclude
that the contested property was indeed acquired during the marriage of herein
[respondent] and Muriel. To prove that it is nonetheless paraphernal property, it is
incumbent upon [petitioners] to adduce strong, clear and convincing evidence that
Muriel bought the same with her exclusive funds. [Petitioners] failed to discharge
the burden. Nowhere in the evidence presented by them do We find any indication
that the land in question was acquired by Muriel with her exclusive funds. The
presumption not having been overthrown, the conclusion is that the contested land
is conjugal property."
by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-
ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be
presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned
by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the
acquisition by other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the
acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family
and of the household.
- The law is clear. In the absence, as here, of proofs to the contrary, any property
acquired by common-law spouses during their period of cohabitation is presumed
to have been obtained thru their joint efforts and is owned by them in equal
shares. Their property relationship is governed by the rules on co-ownership. And
under this regime, they owned their properties in common "in equal shares." Being
herself a co-owner of the structure in question, Juliet, as correctly ruled by the CA,
may not be ejected therefrom.

7. When can a wife bind the conjugal partnership?

8. When can a lapsed appeal be permitted of jurisdiction?

9. Compare Art 147 and 148 of FC

Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties
acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or
industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In
the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are
presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money
and evidences of credit.

If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall
accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If
the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her share shall be
forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.

The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall, likewise, apply even if both parties are in bad faith.

Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively
with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage,
their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired