GR L 20510; (April, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20510 April 29, 1966
FELICIDAD TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Eulogia Bigornia Cardenas filed a complaint against her husband Leoncio Cardenas and Flarencia Riñen (with whom Leoncio was allegedly cohabiting) for recovery of P3,000.00 for her maintenance since leaving the conjugal dwelling, an accounting of the fruits of the conjugal partnership, and transfer of the administration of conjugal properties to her. The complaint alleged that the spouses acquired a lot in Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal, where they built a house rented for P100.00 a month, which rental was being received by Felicidad Tolentino, successor-in-interest of Leoncio Cardenas. Felicidad Tolentino claimed she was the owner of Lot No. 2-A, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38550 in her name, and that she purchased the house from Leoncio Cardenas, who represented himself as the sole owner. The trial court rendered a decision ordering Leoncio Cardenas to pay damages, deliver administration of conjugal property to the wife, and declared “the sale, if any, of the house and lot in question to Felicidad Tolentino as null and void” for violation of Article 166 of the Civil Code. Only Felicidad Tolentino appealed to the Court of Appeals, specifically assailing the declaration of nullity of the sale. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, noting the evidence did not show a sale of the lot between Leoncio Cardenas and Tolentino, and pointing to documentary inconsistencies regarding the lot’s ownership.
ISSUE
Whether the decisions of the lower courts adjudicated the ownership of the lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38550 in the name of Felicidad Tolentino or declared the sale of said lot null and void.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court clarified that what was declared null and void by the trial court was “the sale, if any” of the house and lot allegedly belonging to the conjugal partnership. There was no actual finding that a sale of the lot claimed by petitioner Tolentino occurred. The only established transaction was the sale of the house by defendant husband to petitioner Tolentino for P500.00 in November 1954 without the wife’s consent, which is null and void under Article 166 of the Civil Code. Since there was no finding that the lot covered by Tolentino’s title ever belonged to the conjugal partnership, and no sale of any conjugal lot was proven, there is no controversy over that lot in the proceeding. The petition was dismissed.