GR L 49644; (July, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-49644-45 July 16, 1984
MARIANO GARCIA and Spouses HERMAN SANTOS and ARSENIA GARCIA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF EUGENIO DE JESUS, namely, DOMICIANO, JESUS, JOSEFINA and AURELIO, all surnamed DE JESUS, PETRA BUENAVENTURA, CLARA GATMAITAN VDA. DE ANTONIO, ARCADIO FLORES and NATIVIDAD ANTONIO, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves a 581-square meter unregistered conjugal lot in Bulacan owned by spouses Eugenio de Jesus and Petra Buenaventura. On March 26, 1969, the elderly Eugenio de Jesus, while suffering from a cataract, signed a document purporting to be a deed of exchange. He allegedly believed it was merely an agreement allowing his tenant, petitioner Mariano Garcia, to build a house on the lot and pay the taxes. The deed, which exchanged the lot for Garcia’s proindiviso share in a riceland, contained deficiencies filled in with a different typewriter after De Jesus signed to make it registerable. Petra Buenaventura did not sign the deed. Garcia later sold the lot to petitioners spouses Herman Santos and Arsenia Garcia, who then allegedly delivered possession to other private respondents.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the deed of exchange is valid, considering the circumstances of its execution and the absence of the wife’s consent.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision annulling the deed of exchange. The Court held that the factual findings of the lower courts—particularly that Petra Buenaventura did not consent to the transaction—are binding and conclusive. The legal logic is grounded in the mandatory requirements of the Civil Code governing conjugal property. Article 166 provides that the husband cannot alienate or encumber any conjugal real property without the wife’s consent. The absence of such consent renders the disposition void. The Court emphasized this as a mandatory requirement, citing jurisprudence like Tolentino vs. Cardenas.
Since the deed was void ab initio, Mariano Garcia acquired no rights to the property. Consequently, he could not transmit any valid title to the Santos spouses under the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what he does not have). The petitioners’ claim of being innocent purchasers was irrelevant, as the void deed precluded any transfer of rights from the outset. The Court ordered the heirs of De Jesus to return the riceland received under the void exchange, finalizing the annulment of the transaction and the dismissal of the related possession case.