f.) SPOUSES FUENTES vs.

ROCA_CONSENT_SALES BY
AND BETWEEN SPOUSE_ Kiong
FACTS: Sabina Tarroza owned a titled 358-square meter lot in
Canelar, Zamboanga City. She sold it to her son, Tarciano oca
!Tarciano" under a deed o# absolute sale, but Tarciano did not
ha$e the registered title trans#erred to his name. Tarciano sold
the lot to %etitioners &anuel and 'eticia (uentes !the (uentes
s%ouses". They later signed an agreement to sell. The
agreement required the (uentes s%ouses to %ay Tarciano a
down %ayment o# )*+,+++.++ #or the trans#er o# the lot,s title
to him. -nd, within si. months, Tarciano was to clear the lot o#
structures and occu%ants and secure the consent o# his
estranged wi#e, osario /abriel oca !osario", to the sale.
0%on Tarciano,s com%liance with these conditions, the (uentes
s%ouses were to ta1e %ossession o# the lot and %ay him an
additional )23+,+++.++ or )2*+,+++.++, de%ending on
whether or not he succeeded in demolishing the house
standing on it. 4# Tarciano was unable to com%ly with these
conditions, the (uentes s%ouses would become owners o# the
lot without any #urther #ormality and %ayment.
The %arties le#t their signed agreement with -tty. )lagata who
then wor1ed on the other requirements o# the sale. -ccording
to the lawyer, he went to see osario in one o# his tri%s to
&anila and had her sign an a5da$it o# consent. -s soon as
Tarciano met the other conditions, -tty. )lagata notarized
osario,s a5da$it in Zamboanga City. 6n 7anuary 22, 2888
Tarciano e.ecuted a deed of !so"#$e in #a$or o# the (uentes
s%ouses. They then %aid him the additional )23+,+++.++
mentioned in their agreement. - new title was issued in the
name o# the s%ouses who immediately constructed a building
on the lot. 6n 7anuary 98, 288+ Tarciano %assed away,
#ollowed by his wi#e osario who died nine months a#terwards.
:ight years later in 288;, the res%ondents, the children o#
Tarciano and osario and Tarciano,s sister !collecti$ely, the
ocas", <led an %$ion fo& nn#"'en$ of s"e and
recon$eyance o# the land against the (uentes s%ouses be#ore
the TC. The ocas claimed that the sale to the s%ouses was
$oid since Tarciano,s wi#e, osario, did not gi$e her consent to
it. =er signature on the a5da$it o# consent had been #orged.
They thus %rayed that the %ro%erty be recon$eyed to them
u%on reimbursement o# the %rice that the (uentes s%ouses
%aid Tarciano.
The s%ouses denied the ocas, allegations. They %resented
-tty. )lagata who testi<ed that he %ersonally saw osario sign
the a5da$it at her residence in )aco, &anila, on Se%tember
25, 2888. =e admitted, howe$er, that he notarized the
document in Zamboanga City #our months later. -ll the same,
the (uentes s%ouses %ointed out that the claim o# #orgery was
%ersonal to osario and she alone could in$o1e it. >esides, the
#our-year %rescri%ti$e %eriod #or nulli#ying the sale on ground
o# #raud had already la%sed. >oth the ocas and the (uentes
s%ouses %resented handwriting e.%erts at the trial. The ocas,
e.%ert testi<ed that the signatures were not written by the
same %erson. The s%ouses, e.%ert concluded that they were.
RTC? dismissed the case. 4t ruled that the action had already
%rescribed. &oreo$er, the ocas #ailed to %resent clear and
con$incing e$idence o# the #raud and -tty. )lagata,s de#ecti$e
notarization o# the a5da$it o# consent did not in$alidate the
sale. CA? re$ersed the TC decision. The C- #ound su5cient
e$idence o# #orgery. C- noted signi<cant $ariance in the
signatures. C- concluded that their %ro%erty relations were
go$erned by the Ci$il Code under which an action #or
annulment o# sale on the ground o# lac1 o# s%ousal consent
may be brought by the wi#e during the marriage within 2+
years #rom the transaction. Consequently, the action that the
ocas, her heirs, brought in 288; #ell within 2+ years o# the
7anuary 22, 2888 sale.
(SSUE: WON T)E SALE WAS *O(D. YES+ $,e s"e -s
void !e%#se of "%. of %onsen$.
2. @6A osario,s signature was #orged there#ore ma1ing the
sale $oid. B:S.
9. @6A the ocas, action #or the declaration o# nullity o# the
sale already %rescribed. A6.
3. @6A the ocas could bring the action to annul that sale.
B:S.
)ELD: First. The Court agrees with the C-,s obser$ation that
osario,s signature stro1es on the a5da$it a%%ears hea$y,
deliberate, and #orced. =er s%ecimen signatures, on the other
hand, are consistently o# a lighter stro1e and more Cuid. The
way the letters DD and DsD were written is also remar1ably
diEerent. The $ariance is ob$ious e$en to the untrained eye.
Aotably, osario had been li$ing se%arately #rom Tarciano #or
3+ years since 2858. -nd she resided so #ar away in &anila. 4t
would ha$e been quite tem%ting #or Tarciano to Fust #orge her
signature and a$oid the ris1 that she would not gi$e her
consent to the sale or demand a stiE %rice #or it.
-tty. )lagata admittedly #alsi<ed the Furat o# the a5da$it o#
consent. That Furat declared that osario swore to the
document and signed it in Zamboanga City on 7anuary 22,
2888 when, as -tty. )lagata testi<ed, she su%%osedly signed it
about #our months earlier at her residence in )aco, &anila on
Se%tember 25, 2888. @hile a de#ecti$e notarization will
merely stri% the document o# its %ublic character and reduce it
to a %ri$ate instrument, that #alsi<ed Furat, ta1en together
with the mar1s o# #orgery in the signature, dooms such
document as %roo# o# osario,s consent to the sale o# the land.
That the (uentes s%ouses honestly relied on the notarized
a5da$it as %roo# o# osario,s consent does not matter. T,e
s"e is s$i"" void -i$,o#$ n #$,en$i% %onsen$.
Second. !):S6AS" T,e "- $,$ //"ies $o $,is %se is
$,e F'i"0 Code, not the Ci$il Code. -lthough Tarciano and
osario got married in 285+, Tarciano sold the conFugal
%ro%erty to the (uentes s%ouses on 7anuary 22, 2888, a #ew
months a#ter the (amily Code too1 eEect on -ugust 3, 2888.
@hen Tarciano married osario, the Ci$il Code %ut in %lace the
system o# conFugal %artnershi% o# gains on their %ro%erty
relations. @hile its -rticle 2*5 made Tarciano the sole
administrator o# the conFugal %artnershi%, -rticle
2** %rohibited him #rom selling commonly owned real
%ro%erty without his wi#e,s consent. Still, i# he sold the same
without his wi#e,s consent, the sale is not $oid but merely
$oidable. -rticle 2;3 ga$e osario the right to ha$e the sale
annulled during the marriage within ten years #rom the date
o# the sale. (ailing in that, she or her heirs may demand, a#ter
dissolution o# the marriage, only the $alue o# the %ro%erty that
Tarciano #raudulently sold.
=owe$er, when Tarciano sold the conFugal lot to the (uentes
s%ouses on 7anuary 22, 2888, the law that go$erned the
dis%osal o# that lot was already the (amily Code. 4n contrast to
-rticle 2;3 o# the Ci$il Code, -rticle 293 o# the (amily Code
does not %ro$ide a %eriod within which the wi#e who ga$e no
consent may assail her husband,s sale o# the real %ro%erty.
-rticle 293 sim%ly %ro$ides that without the other s%ouse,s
written consent or a court order allowing the sale, the same
would be $oid. >ut, although a $oid contract has no legal
eEects, an %$ion $o de%"&e i$s ine1is$en%e is necessary to
allow restitution o# what has been gi$en under it. This action,
according to -rticle 232+ o# the Ci$il Code does no$
/&es%&i!e.
There#ore, the %assage o# time did not erode the right o# the
ocas to bring an action against the (uentes s%ouses. :$en
assuming that it is the Ci$il Code that a%%lies, the action that
the ocas brought still #ell within 2+ years %rescri%ti$e %eriod.
osario was not a $ictim o# #raud or misre%resentation. =er
consent was sim%ly not obtained at all. 0ltimately, $,e Ro%s
g&o#nd fo& nn#"'en$ is no$ fo&ge&0 !#$ $,e "%. of
-&i$$en %onsen$ of $,ei& 'o$,e& $o $,e s"e. The #orgery
is merely e$idence o# lac1 o# consent.
Third. !)6):TB" The sale was $oid #rom the beginning.
Consequently, the land remained the %ro%erty o# Tarciano and
osario des%ite that sale. -s law#ul heirs, the ocas had the
right, under -rticle 398 o# the Ci$il Code, to e.clude any
%erson #rom its enFoyment and dis%osal. (urther, the (uentes
s%ouses a%%ear to ha$e acted in good #aith in entering the
land and building im%ro$ements on it. The (uentes s%ouses
had no reason to belie$e that the lawyer had $iolated his
commission and his oath. 4ndeed, they willingly made a 3+
%ercent down %ayment on the selling %rice months earlier on
the assurance that it was #orthcoming.(urther, the notarized
document a%%ears to ha$e com#orted the (uentes s%ouses
that e$erything was already in order. -nd, acting on the
documents submitted to it, the egister o# Geeds o#
Zamboanga City issued a new title in the names o# the
(uentes s%ouses. 4t was only a#ter all these had %assed that
the s%ouses entered the %ro%erty and built on it. =e is
deemed a %ossessor in good #aith.
-s %ossessor in good #aith, the (uentes s%ouses were under
no obligation to %ay #or their stay on the %ro%erty %rior to its
legal interru%tion by a <nal Fudgment against them. @hat is
more, they are entitled under -rticle 338 to indemnity #or the
im%ro$ements they introduced into the %ro%erty with a right
o# retention until the reimbursement is made. The ocas shall
o# course ha$e the o%tion, %ursuant to -rticle 53* o# the Ci$il
Code, o# indemni#ying the (uentes s%ouses #or the costs o# the
im%ro$ements or %aying the increase in $alue which the
%ro%erty may ha$e acquired by reason o# such im%ro$ements.