#31 AGUSTIN DE LUNA, ET AL. vs. JOSE LINATOCG.R. No.

L-48403October
28, 1942

BOCOBO,
J .:
Relevant Laws/Topic: Article 3
–
Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Facts: Short summary: The wife, who acted as an agent of the husband (De Luna),
sold a portion of their conjugal property during the subsistence of their marriage (The
land was under the name of the husband only because they already partitioned the
parcel of land).Under the law, a conjugal property cannot be partitioned during the
subsistence of a marriage unless there was a judicial separation of property. The
spouses, claiming ignorance of the said prohibition, wanted to assail the sale of
the land to Jose Linatoc. The court DID NOT ALLOW such petition because of Article
3 (Article 2 of the CC during the time the decision was rendered)

FACTS:P-wife (no name provided eh, si Agustin lang meron) sold a portion of
their conjugal property to R. The parcel of land was the
husband’s portion of the conjugal property. The wife, with the know
ledge and consent of the husband, sold the lot to R as evidenced by the deed of sale
and the deed of recognition wherein the husband recognized and reiterated his
acquiescence to the sale (Art 1416
–
A conjugal property can be sold by one spouse if the other spouse consents).Such
sale was prohibited by Art 1432 because partitioning the conjugal property during
marriage can only be done if there was a judicial separation of property, or else it
would be illegal and void. The sale can only be valid if the land was sold under the
name of the conjugal partnership and not of the husband only. The Ps assail the
validity of the sale to R, claiming that they do not know of such prohibition

ISSUE: WON the sale may be validly annulled by the spouses?

NO. HELD/RATIO: Mistake of law does not make a contract voidable, because
ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from its compliance (art. 2,Civil Code;
8 Manresa, 646, 2d ed.). That the petitioners did not know the prohibition against
partition of the conjugal partnership property during marriage (art. 1432, Civil Code)
is no valid reason why they should ask for the annulment of the sales made Exhibits
C and D and recognized in Exhibit I.

Moreover, there is the time-honored legal maxim that no man can take advantage of
his own wrong. To repudiate the sales in question, petitioners are setting up their
own wrongful act of partitioning their conjugal property, which violated article 1432
of the Civil Code. The prohibition in said article affects public policy, as it is designed
to protect creditors of the conjugal partnership and other third persons. Petitioners
shall not, therefore, be allowed thus to rest their cause of action to recover the lands
sold, upon the illegality of the partition which they attempted to make. Otherwise,
they would profit by their own unlawful act.