G.R. No. 92245; June 26, 1991
MELANIA A. ROXAS, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO M. CAYETANO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Melania A. Roxas discovered that her estranged husband, Antonio S. Roxas, entered into a contract of lease on March 30, 1987, covering a portion of their conjugal lot, without her knowledge or consent. She had previously planned to operate her own business on the same property and had incurred expenses for its development. The lessee, private respondent Antonio M. Cayetano, moved to dismiss Melania’s complaint for annulment of the lease contract on the ground that it stated no cause of action. The trial court granted the motion, ruling the allegations were insufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether a husband, as administrator of the conjugal partnership, may validly enter into a contract of lease involving conjugal real property without the wife’s consent.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the complaint. While the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership under Article 165 of the Civil Code, his administrative powers are not absolute. Article 166 explicitly provides that the husband cannot alienate or encumber any conjugal real property without the wife’s consent. The Court held that a lease contract for a period exceeding one year constitutes an encumbrance, as it transfers the right of use and is a qualified alienation that burdens the property. Consequently, such a lease executed without the requisite marital consent is voidable under Article 173. The wife has a cause of action to seek its annulment within ten years from the transaction. Since the complaint alleged the lease was entered into without her consent, it sufficiently stated a cause of action against both her husband and the lessee. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.