G.R. No. 82753 December 19, 1989
ESTELA COSTUNA, petitioner, vs. LAUREANA DOMONDON, THE HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XCVIII, QUEZON CITY, THE HON. PRESIDING JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, 13TH DIVISION, MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

The spouses Amadeo and Estela Costuna acquired three parcels of land as conjugal property, registered in Amadeo’s name. Marital discord arose, and Amadeo suffered severe burns requiring hospitalization. While ill, he was taken to Samar by relatives and not returned to his wife. Amidst a custody feud, Amadeo, needing funds for medical expenses, executed a deed of sale on July 10, 1978, conveying his one-half undivided share of the conjugal property to Laureana Domondon, without Estela’s consent. Amadeo died shortly after. Domondon, claiming her share, opposed the probate of Amadeo’s will, which named Estela as sole heir. The probate court allowed the will. Domondon then filed an action in the Regional Trial Court to compel Estela to give her conformity to the sale. The trial court ruled in Domondon’s favor, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Estela elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the husband, Amadeo Costuna, could validly alienate his one-half share of the conjugal property without the wife’s consent to cover necessary medical expenses, and whether the wife can be compelled to give her consent to such alienation.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic proceeds from the interplay of the rules on conjugal property administration and the doctrine of constructive consent. Under Article 166 of the Civil Code, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any conjugal real property without the wife’s consent. However, the Court recognized an exception where the wife’s refusal to consent is unreasonable and prejudicial to the partnership. The necessity of raising funds for Amadeo’s critical medical treatment constituted a benefit to the conjugal partnership, as the health of a spouse is indispensable to the partnership’s welfare under Article 161. Estela’s refusal to consent, despite knowing her husband’s dire need, was deemed unreasonable and oppressive. Consequently, the sale of Amadeo’s one-half share to Domondon was upheld as falling within the recognized exceptions to the requirement of spousal consent. The Court further noted that the husband’s act of designating his wife as sole heir in his will did not negate the validity of the prior sale of his share, which was a rightful disposition of his own property interest. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which supported the husband’s pressing need and the wife’s unreasonable withholding of consent, were deemed binding.