G.R. No. L-9727; April 29, 1957
Margarita Tabunan, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Timoteo Marigmen and Consorcia Marigmen, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Margarita Tabunan is the wife of Valentin Catalon. On January 30, 1937, a homestead title (O.T.C. No. 14315) was issued in the name of Valentin Catalon, married to Margarita Tabunan, for a parcel of land in Callang, Roxas, Isabela. Plaintiff and Catalon have been living separately for some time. On July 13, 1948, Catalon sold the homestead to defendants Timoteo Marigmen and Consorcia Marigmen for P1,000, and a transfer certificate of title (No. T-880) was issued in their names. Plaintiff filed a complaint with three causes of action: (1) to repurchase the entire homestead; (2) to have one-half of the homestead given to her, alleging the property was conjugal, sold without her knowledge and consent, and without her receiving any portion of the selling price; and (3) for the return of the produce of the homestead during defendants’ possession. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to sue, the action being barred by the statute of limitations, and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the husband, as administrator of the conjugal property, had the right to sell the homestead without the wife’s consent, and that the demand to repurchase was not effected within the five-year period from the 1948 sale as required by Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 . The trial court also overruled plaintiff’s claim that the sale was in fraud of her conjugal rights under Article 1413(2) of the old Civil Code, finding no allegation of fraud.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint states a cause of action, particularly in light of the allegation that the sale of the conjugal homestead by the husband was made without the wife’s knowledge and consent and without her sharing in the proceeds, thereby potentially constituting fraud under Article 1413(2) of the old Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that under the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff has a cause of action and a remedy. While the husband generally had the full, absolute, and complete right to administer and dispose of conjugal property under the old Civil Code, even if the spouses were separated, the specific allegations that the sale was consummated without the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent, that she was not shared in the purchase price, and that defendants knew the homestead was conjugal property, are sufficient to potentially bring the case under paragraph 2 of Article 1413 of the old Civil Code, which voids sales made in fraud of the wife. The Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding that no concrete allegation of fraud was made. The fact that plaintiff’s rights may depend on the contingency of liquidation of the conjugal partnership does not mean her action is premature. Following the precedent in Baello vs. Villanueva, the plaintiff is entitled to protect her contingent interest by having it recorded and annotated on the title. The Court also noted that the new provision (Article 166 of the new Civil Code) requiring the wife’s consent for the sale of conjugal property could not apply retroactively to the 1948 sale without impairing vested rights.