G.R. No. 118784 , September 2, 1999
HEIRS OF CHRISTINA AYUSTE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and VIENA MALABONGA, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a questioned sale of conjugal real property concluded on 27 February 1987. This date is before the effectivity of the Family Code, so the transaction is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code then in force.

ISSUE

What is the legal effect of a sale of conjugal real property by the husband without the wife’s consent under the governing provisions of the Civil Code?

RULING

Under the Civil Code, the husband could not alienate or encumber any conjugal real property acquired by the partnership after its effective date without the consent, express or implied, of the wife (Art. 166). Absent such consent, the disposition would be void. However, consistent with Article 173 of the Civil Code, such a contract should be considered merely voidable. The wife could, during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction, seek its annulment. If she fails to do so, she or her heirs, after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of the property alienated. An unauthorized sale by the husband of conjugal real property, not being the administrator thereof, or of the exclusive paraphernal property of the wife without her prior consent, could be void under Article 1874 of the Civil Code.
The ruling clarifies that a sale or encumbrance of conjugal property concluded after the effectivity of the Family Code is governed by a different rule under Article 124, which declares such a disposition void if done without the conjoint consent of the spouses or the court’s authority. The Family Code has abandoned the Civil Code concept of the husband as the statutory administrator of the conjugal partnership, conferring joint administration on both spouses instead.