G.R. No. L-18976. February 29, 1964. DAMASO PEÑARA and JULITA TIMTIMAN, petitioners-appellees, vs. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, respondent, SOFIA S. BOSTON and THE HEIRS OF WILLIAM BOSTON, oppositors-appellants.
FACTS:

Petitioners Damaso Peñara and Julita Timtiman sought to register a deed of sale dated August 25, 1942, covering two parcels of land. The vendor was Sofia S. Boston, and the land was covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 444, a free patent granted solely in her name. The Register of Deeds of Rizal denied the registration because the deed, while signed by “W. S. Boston,” lacked clear indication that this signatory was Sofia’s husband, William Boston, and did not contain his ratification of the sale as required for conjugal property.
The petitioners appealed to the Commissioner of Land Registration, who reversed the denial. The Commissioner ruled that the free patent, granted explicitly to Sofia S. Boston alone under the authority of the Public Land Act, indicated the land was her exclusive property. Consequently, under Article 140 of the New Civil Code, she could alienate it without her husband’s consent. The oppositors, Sofia S. Boston and the heirs of William Boston, appealed to the Supreme Court, contending the property was conjugal since the title identified Sofia as “married to William Boston” and was acquired during marriage.

ISSUE

Whether the subject property is the exclusive property of Sofia S. Boston, thereby allowing her to validly alienate it without her husband’s specific consent or ratification.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commissioner’s ruling, holding the property to be Sofia S. Boston’s exclusive property and the sale valid. The legal logic proceeds from the nature of a free patent grant. The Court emphasized that the Original Certificate of Title was issued solely in the name of Sofia S. Boston based on her compliance with the Public Land Act as a “native settler.” The patent’s granting clause did not include William Boston. The Court presumed that since the husband was not named as a co-grantee, the land was acquired through Sofia’s own occupation and cultivation, likely before her marriage, making it her exclusive capital property.
Even assuming arguendo that the property was conjugal, the sale was still valid due to the husband’s participation. The deed of sale was signed by both “Sofia S. Boston” and “W. S. Boston.” The title itself stated the owner was married to William Boston. The authenticity of the signature “W. S. Boston” was never questioned by the oppositors. Therefore, the Court logically concluded that the signatory was indeed her husband, and his uncontested signature on the deed constituted sufficient proof of his consent to the sale, rendering a separate notarial ratification unnecessary. The denial of registration by the Register of Deeds was thus incorrect.