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

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over the sale of a conjugal property. The spouses Jorge and Hilaria Escalona were married in 1977 under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains governed by the Civil Code. In 2007, during the effectivity of the Family Code, Jorge sold a parcel of land, a conjugal asset, to Belinda Alexander without the knowledge or consent of his wife Hilaria. Hilaria later discovered the sale and, together with her son Reygan, filed a complaint seeking the declaration of nullity of the deed of sale and the cancellation of the title issued to Belinda. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the action had prescribed. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the sale void for lack of spousal consent under Article 124 of the Family Code. Belinda elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing primarily that the applicable law should be the Civil Code since the marriage was celebrated before the Family Code took effect.

ISSUE

The core legal issue is whether the sale of conjugal property by the husband without the wife’s consent, executed after the effectivity of the Family Code but in a marriage celebrated prior thereto, is void or merely voidable, and what is the applicable law and prescriptive period for challenging such a sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through the ponencia, denied Belinda’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The concurring opinion of Justice Caguioa, which fully aligns with the ponencia, provides critical clarifications. The ruling establishes that the determinative factor for the applicable law is the date of the alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal property, not the date of the marriage. Since the disputed sale occurred in 2007, the Family Code governs. Under Article 124 of the Family Code, such a disposition made without court authority or the written consent of the other spouse is void. This rule applies regardless of when the marriage was celebrated, as the law in force at the time of the act controls its validity. The Court abandoned any contrary precedent, clarifying that the earlier case of Spouses Cueno v. Spouses Bautista, which dealt with a sale during the Civil Code regime, is not controlling for acts occurring after the Family Code’s effectivity.
Justice Caguioa further concurred that the action to declare such a void sale null is not imprescriptible. While the contract is void, the remedy is subject to the rule on continuing offer under Article 124, which can be accepted or ratified by the non-consenting spouse. If unaccepted, the action must be filed before this offer is withdrawn. This distinguishes it from actions on inherently void contracts under the Civil Code. On the facts, Belinda was not a buyer in good faith as she was aware of the property’s conjugal nature and did not verify Hilaria’s consent. Consequently, the sale was correctly declared void, and Hilaria was entitled to reimbursement of the purchase price Belinda paid to Jorge. The ruling provides clear guidelines: for dispositions after the Family Code’s effectivity (August 3, 1988), lack of required spousal consent renders the act void, and the aggrieved spouse may seek its nullity.