Unsanctioned

The administration and enjoyment of conjugal partnership properties shall belong to both spouses jointly. So any encumbrance or disposition of said property must have their consent, otherwise it is void. But if the written consent of one of them cannot be obtained or is being withheld, what can be done to give validity to the disposition or sale? This is the issue answered in this case of the spouses John and Amy.

The conjugal properties involved here were four parcels of land in Makati City and Taytay, Rizal together with the improvements erected thereon which were advertised for sale in the newspaper by John and Amy’s real estate broker.  One of those responding to said ad was Nita who negotiated with the couple for their purchase after examining the documents and inspecting said properties accompanied by the broker. In the presence of Amy and the Broker, Jun and Nita engaged in some bargaining and later on agreed on the purchase price of P1.5 million  for the Taytay property and P2.1 million for the Makati City property to be paid in installment after a down payment of P100,000 and P200,000 respectively.

The agreement was handwritten by Nita and signed by John only but with his assurance that Amy will sign the formal documents.  The formal type-written Contracts to Sell were thereafter prepared by Nita and the following day, she and the broker met with John at the latter’s office for the formal signing of the type-written contracts to sell.  After John signed the formal contracts Nita already paid the down payments. The contracts were then given to John for the affixing of his wife’s signature.

When Nita met with the spouses again together with the broker at John’s office for the formal affixing of Amy’s signature, Amy refused to sign despite Nita’s insistence that the contract was already perfected because down payments were already made. Apparently the couple would like spot cash instead of installment payments. So Nita sued the couple for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

In a summary judgment based on the pleadings and admissions of the parties, the RTC dismissed Nita’s complaint on the ground that under Article 124 of the Family Code (FC), the contract must have the written consent of Amy and it cannot intervene to authorize the transaction in the absence of such consent since Amy was not incapacitated. Was the RTC correct?

Yes. The law (Art. 124, FC) requires that the disposition of conjugal properties by the husband as administrator in appropriate cases requires the written consent of the wife, otherwise the disposition is void.  In this case the properties subjects of the contracts were conjugal properties so the consent of both John and Amy must concur for said contracts to be affective.

Even granting that Amy actively participated in the negotiations for the sale of said properties, her written consent to the sale is still required by law for its validity. Being merely aware of the transaction is not consent.

If the written consent of the wife as in this case cannot be obtained or is being withheld, the court may indeed give such authority to the sale but this is only in cases where the wife or the spouse who refuses to give consent is incapacitated. Here, it was not alleged or proven that Amy was incapacitated (Jader-Manalo vs. Camaisa, G.R. No. 147978, January 25, 2002, 374 SCRA 498).

E-mail: [email protected]