GR 118784; (September, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118784, September 2, 1999.
HEIRS OF CHRISTINA AYUSTE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and VIENA MALABONGA, respondents.
FACTS
Christina Ayuste and Rafael Ayuste were married. They purchased a parcel of land with a house in Lucena City, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-42972 was issued in the name of “RAFAEL T. AYUSTE, married to Christina Ayuste.” On February 27, 1987, Rafael Ayuste executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of private respondent Viena Malabonga, selling the property for P40,000. The deed contained the signature of Christina Ayuste below the phrase “With my conformity.” The deed was registered on March 5, 1987, and TCT No. T-50046 was issued in Malabonga’s name. After Rafael Ayuste’s death on October 13, 1989, Christina Ayuste discovered the sale during an inventory of properties. She filed a complaint on March 2, 1990, for annulment of the sale, alleging her signature was forged and the sale was made without her knowledge and consent. The Regional Trial Court declared the sale null and void. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding that Christina Ayuste’s action was barred by laches for not being filed “during the marriage” as required by Article 173 of the Civil Code, and that Malabonga was a buyer in good faith.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are entitled to the annulment of the contract of sale entered into by Rafael Ayuste without the consent of Christina Ayuste.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The sale by the husband of conjugal real property without the wife’s consent is not void but merely voidable. The action for annulment must be filed during the marriage, as prescribed by Article 173 of the Civil Code. Christina Ayuste filed the action only after her husband’s death, which was beyond the period allowed by law. Furthermore, the registration of the deed of sale with the Register of Deeds constituted constructive notice to the whole world, including Christina Ayuste, from March 5, 1987. Her failure to assert her rights within a reasonable time, despite this constructive notice, barred her claim by laches. The contract was declared valid and binding.