G.R. No. 137808 September 30, 2005
Aldegonda Vda. De Ramones, Beatriz and Margarita, Both Surnamed Ramones, Petitioners, vs. Aurora P. Agbayani, Assisted by Her Husband Filemon Agbayani, Respondent.

FACTS

Spouses Santos and Aldegonda Ramones were the registered owners of a conjugal lot. On May 23, 1979, Santos Ramones, without the knowledge or consent of his wife Aldegonda, sold a 100-square meter portion of the lot to respondent Aurora Agbayani. The Deed of Sale was annotated on the title. Santos Ramones died in 1980. Subsequently, Aldegonda and her daughters (petitioners) constructed a restroom and septic tank on the sold portion, prompting Agbayani to file a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession.
Petitioners argued that the sale was void because the property was conjugal and the husband executed the deed without the wife’s consent. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring the sale void. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding the sale to be merely voidable and, due to the wife’s inaction, had become valid. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the sale of conjugal real property by the husband without the wife’s consent is void or merely voidable under the applicable law.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The sale is valid. The transaction occurred in 1979, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code; thus, the Civil Code provisions govern. Article 166 of the Civil Code prohibits the husband from alienating conjugal real property without the wife’s consent. However, this must be read in conjunction with Article 173, which provides that the wife may, during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction, ask the courts for its annulment.
The legal logic establishes that the lack of spousal consent does not render the alienation void ab initio, but merely voidable at the wife’s instance. The wife’s right is a personal right to seek annulment within a prescriptive period. In this case, petitioner Aldegonda Ramones never filed an action to annul the sale within the ten-year period prescribed by Article 173. Consequently, her right to challenge the transaction had prescribed, and the contract remained valid and enforceable against the conjugal partnership. The Court applied its precedent in Villaranda v. Villaranda, which settled that such sales are voidable, not void, and the wife’s failure to act validates the transaction.