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. After Santos’s death, petitioners Aldegonda and her daughters built structures 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 alienated it without the wife’s consent. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the sale void. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding the sale to be valid.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling the sale as valid. The legal logic hinges on the applicable law and the nature of the wife’s right to challenge the transaction. The sale 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 prohibition must be read in conjunction with Article 173, which provides the remedy: the wife may, during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction, ask the courts for its annulment. This statutory framework establishes that such an unauthorized alienation is not void but merely voidable at the wife’s instance. The wife’s inaction within the prescribed period results in the validation of the contract.
In this case, petitioner Aldegonda Ramones never instituted an action to annul the Deed of Sale executed by her husband within the ten-year prescriptive period provided by Article 173. Consequently, her right to challenge the transaction had prescribed, and the sale became valid and enforceable against the conjugal partnership. The Court emphasized the distinction between void and voidable contracts, clarifying that the absence of spousal consent does not render the act nullity but merely a defect that can be cured by ratification or, as here, by the lapse of the period to annul.