GR 153802; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153802. March 11, 2005. Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank, Petitioner, vs. Miguela C. Dailo, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Miguela C. Dailo and Marcelino Dailo, Jr. were married. During their marriage, they purchased a house and lot, but the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed solely in favor of Marcelino. In 1993, Marcelino executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing Lilibeth Gesmundo to obtain a loan from petitioner Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank, secured by a real estate mortgage on the subject property. These transactions were done without Miguela’s knowledge or consent. Upon the loan’s maturity, petitioner extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, consolidated ownership, and executed a deed of absolute sale after the redemption period.
Marcelino died in 1995. Miguela later discovered the mortgage and foreclosure. She filed an action for nullity of the mortgage and related documents, reconveyance, and damages, claiming the property was conjugal and the mortgage was invalid without her consent. The trial court ruled in her favor, declaring the mortgage void and ordering reconveyance and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the nullity and reconveyance but deleted the monetary awards.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) Whether the mortgage constituted by Marcelino Dailo, Jr. on the conjugal property, without his wife’s consent, is valid at least as to his undivided share; and (2) Whether the conjugal partnership is liable for the loan obligation, claiming it redounded to the family’s benefit.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. On the first issue, the Court held the entire real estate mortgage null and void. Applying Article 124 of the Family Code, the alienation or encumbrance of conjugal real property requires the written consent of both spouses. The property, acquired during marriage, was presumed conjugal. The mortgage, executed without Miguela’s consent, was a void contract. The Court rejected the argument that Article 493 of the Civil Code on co-ownership applied, distinguishing that the provision governs relations among co-owners generally, not the specific regime of conjugal property under the Family Code, which imposes stricter consent requirements for the spouses’ protection.
On the second issue, the Court ruled the conjugal partnership was not liable for the loan. For a conjugal debt under Article 121(2) of the Family Code, the benefit to the family must be proven. Petitioner merely alleged the loan redounded to the family’s benefit but presented no evidence. The burden of proof lies with the party asserting the fact. Furthermore, petitioner was estopped from raising this new theory on appeal, as it consistently argued in the lower courts that the property was Marcelino’s exclusive asset, changing its theory only at the Supreme Court, which is unfair and violates due process. Thus, the mortgage remained invalid, and the conjugal partnership bore no liability for the debt.