GR 429603; (June, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-429603 June 7, 1971
ANACLETO BALICUDIONG, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ANTONIO BALICUDIONG, deceased, now substituted by his heirs, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Mateo Balicudiong and Anastacia Alcoba were married. On July 1, 1920, during the marriage, Mateo purchased Lot No. 5547 from the Friar Lands Estate on installment. Sale Certificate No. 6612 was issued in his name. Anastacia died on September 23, 1923. Mateo completed all installment payments on June 1, 1931. On June 4, 1931, Mateo executed a deed of assignment over the sale certificate in favor of his son, Antonio Balicudiong, for P300.00. Mateo died in 1945. The plaintiffs, other heirs of Mateo and Anastacia, filed an action for annulment and partition, arguing the lot was conjugal property and the assignment was invalid as to Anastacia’s share. The trial court declared the lot conjugal and held the assignment valid only as to Mateo’s one-half share, ordering partition of the other half.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the assignment executed by Mateo in favor of Antonio was valid over the entire lot, or only over his conjugal share, and whether Antonio acquired the entire property by prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and upheld the validity of the assignment over the entire property. The lot, acquired during the marriage with conjugal funds, was indisputably conjugal property. Upon Anastacia’s death in 1923, the conjugal partnership was dissolved, and her estate owned an undivided one-half interest. However, the Court ruled that Mateo, as the surviving spouse and administrator of the conjugal assets, possessed the legal authority under Act No. 3176 to alienate the entire property, provided it was for valuable consideration and necessary for the payment of conjugal debts. The deed of assignment recited a consideration of P300.00. The plaintiffs failed to prove the transaction was simulated or that there were no conjugal obligations. Therefore, the alienation was deemed valid and effective as to the whole property. Consequently, Antonio acquired full ownership in 1931. The Court further held that even if the assignment were voidable as to Anastacia’s half, Antonio’s open, continuous, and adverse possession of the lot from 1931, coupled with the failure of her heirs to assert their claim within the prescriptive period, vested title in Antonio by acquisitive prescription. The lot thus passed entirely to his heirs, the appellants. The complaint was dismissed.