G.R. No. 256141 . July 19, 2022.
BELINDA ALEXANDER, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JORGE AND HILARIA ESCALONA, AND REYGAN ESCALONA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Spouses Jorge and Hilaria Escalona, married in 1960, acquired two unregistered lots during their marriage. On June 16, 1998, Jorge executed a waiver of his rights over Lot No. 1 in favor of his illegitimate son, Reygan Escalona, without Hilaria’s consent. Later, Reygan transferred his rights over both Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 to Belinda Alexander through a series of deeds in 2005, culminating in a Deed of Absolute Sale. The Spouses Escalona filed a complaint for annulment of these documents, arguing Hilaria never consented to the initial waiver and that Reygan had no authority to sell the conjugal properties. Belinda defended herself as a buyer in good faith and raised the defenses of laches and prescription.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling it was filed beyond the seven-year prescriptive period under the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an action for nullity does not prescribe. It found Belinda was not a buyer in good faith, noting the waiver document indicated Jorge was married yet lacked his wife’s consent, a circumstance that should have put her on guard.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the waiver/alienation of the conjugal property by Jorge without Hilaria’s consent is void or merely voidable, which determines the applicable prescriptive period and the validity of the subsequent transfers.

RULING

The concurring opinion clarifies the applicable law. The property relations of the Spouses Escalona, married in 1960, were initially governed by the Civil Code. Under Article 166 of the Civil Code, the husband’s alienation of conjugal real property without the wife’s consent is merely voidable. Article 173 grants the wife a ten-year period from the transaction to seek its annulment. However, the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988, repealed the relevant Civil Code provisions. Under Article 124 of the Family Code, such a disposition without consent is void.
Critically, Article 105 of the Family Code states its provisions apply retroactively to conjugal partnerships established before its effectivity, “without prejudice to vested rights already acquired.” A vested right is a fixed, established, and absolute right, not a mere expectancy. For such a right to be exempt from the Family Code’s retroactive application, it must have been acquired prior to August 3, 1988. Here, the contested waiver by Jorge occurred on June 16, 1998, long after the Family Code’s effectivity. Therefore, no vested right under the Civil Code’s voidable regime had been acquired by any party before the new law took effect. Consequently, the Family Code applies retroactively. The waiver executed in 1998 without Hilaria’s written consent is void under Article 124, not merely voidable. An action to declare a contract void does not prescribe. The defenses of laches and prescription thus fail. The ruling affirms the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing the trial court.