G.R. No. 27143 , September 10, 1927
QUINTILLANA SAMSON, petitioner-appellee, vs. MANUEL CARRATAL, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Quintillana Samson, a married woman, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila seeking judicial authorization to alienate her paraphernal property (a lot in Cebu inherited from her parents) without her husband’s marital consent. She alleged that she had lived separately from her husband, Manuel Carratal, for over fifteen years; that she had been convicted of bigamy; that reconciliation was impossible due to her bigamous son and her husband being a leper confined in San Lazaro Hospital; and that she needed to sell the property to support herself. She had already executed a deed of sale in favor of Vicente Sotto, but the Register of Deeds of Cebu refused registration due to lack of marital consent.

Carratal initially demurred, arguing another petition for the same cause was pending in the CFI of Cebu. After the demurrer was overruled, he filed a motion for reconsideration and later an answer, contesting the Manila court’s jurisdiction and alleging the petition was filed in bad faith, that Samson’s Manila residence was fictitious (at her lawyer Sotto’s office), and that the sale was without consideration and enjoined by a Cebu court. The CFI of Manila granted Samson’s petition. Carratal appealed, assigning errors on jurisdiction and the merits of granting judicial authorization.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CFI of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the persons and subject matter despite potential improper venue.
2. Whether the trial court correctly granted judicial authorization for the wife to alienate her paraphernal property under Article 1444 of the Civil Code.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that while the petitioner was not a resident of Manila, making the venue improper, the husband waived this objection. His first appearance was by demurrer not based on venue, and he subsequently answered and went to trial on the merits without timely raising the venue issue. Under Section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure, failure to object to venue at the time of appearance constitutes a waiver, except in specific actions not applicable here. Thus, the CFI of Manila acquired jurisdiction over both the persons and the subject matter.

2. On the Merits: The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision. The grant of judicial authorization was not sustained by the evidence. The applicable law is Article 1387 of the Civil Code (governing paraphernal property), not Article 1444 cited by the lower court (which applies to property allotted or managed by the wife in cases of separation). The property, inherited during marriage, is paraphernal.

The Court found that the “advisability or necessity” required by law for such authorization was not proven. The evidence suggested the sale was against the wife’s best interests. The husband, though a leper, was not at fault for his condition or his wife’s bigamy, and he demonstrated a genuine concern for her welfare in opposing the petition. Furthermore, special reasons existed for the case to be decided in Cebu, where both parties resided and the property was located.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs against the appellee.