Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court National Capital Region Branch CXXVI Caloocan City

Anna Geronimo, Plaintiff, -versusPeter Pascual, Defendant x--------------------------------x Civil Case No. C-1234
For: Nullity of Contract of sale

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF

In compliance with the order of this Honourable Court, plaintiff thru counsel most respectfully submits this memorandum and state:

PREFATORY STATEMENT Contract is a meeting of the minds between persons whereby one binds himself with respect to the other, to give something of to render some service.

THE ANTECEDENT FACTS On November 10, 2009 a complaint for nullity of the contract of sale was filed by the plaintiff, Ana Geronimo against the defendant Peter Pascual alleging as follows; 1. Raul Geronimo is the registered owner of a condominium unit located in Anonas, Caloocan City; 2. That the plaintiff is married to Raul Geronimo; 3. That the subject condominium unit was their conjugal property;

4. That the plaintiffs husband sold their one-bedroom condominium unit for two million pesos to the defendant without the plaintiffs consent; 5. That during the sale the plaintiff was in the United States of America, and therefore the written consent was not given; 6. That the defendant insisted that the sale had been consummated even without the plaintiffs consent.

ISSUE Whether or not the contract of sale was valid.

ARGUMENTS PLAINTIFFS SUBMIT THAT THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT ,WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF THE DEED OF SALE SOUGHT TO ANNULLED IS A CONJUGAL PROPERTYAND THUS ITS SALE WITHOUT PLAINTIFFS CONSENT ENTITLES HER TO HAVE THE SALE ANNULLED.
Article 96 of the Family Code specifically provides that in the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse may assume sole power of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding

contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. Hence applying the provision of the law the contract between Raul Gimeno and the defendant is void.

In Jader-Manalo vs Camaisa 374 SCRA 498, the Supreme Court upheld that the disposition of a conjugal property by the husband as administrator in appropriate cases requires the written consent of the wife otherwise the disposition is void.

PRAYER
Wherefore, guided by the light of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully prayed as follows; 1. That the sale of the Condominium unit to the defendant be declared void. 2. Damages be awarded to the plaintiff. 3. And all relief which is just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

City Manila for Caloocan City January 28, 2010

MGDR Law Office Counsel for Anna Geronimo City of Manila

Legal Opinion No.1 September 26, 2011 Mrs. Anna Geronimo Anonas, Caloocan City

Re: Legal opinion on the possibility of bringing a suit to nullify the Deed of Sale.

Dear Mrs. Geronimo, This answers your query about the possibility of bringing a suit to nullify the Deed of Sale against Mr. Peter Pascual. Based on the your interview, the antecedent facts are as follows; Raul Geronimo is the registered owner of the subject condominium whom is your husband. That he bought the property in 2001and brought to the marriage when you and Mr. Geronimo were married in 2006. In 2009 you offered to Mr. Pascual the condominium for sale and the latter replied that he will call you back once the deed of sale and the managers were ready. In May 2009 you left for the United States without Mr. Pascual call. That while you were in the United States Mr. Pascual called your husband and without your knowledge your husband signed the Deed of Sale and accepted the Managers check of Mr. Pascual. On June 2009 you were informed that your husband had already signed the Deed of Sale. However before you received the information you had already decided not to sell the condominium unit.

The Only question that should be answer is whether or not the sale is void.

With this regard we are in the opinion that that question can be answer in the affirmative on the basis of the following;

Article 96 of the Family Code specifically provides that in the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse may assume sole power of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. Hence applying the provision of the law the contract between Raul Gimeno and the defendant is void.

In Jader-Manalo vs Camaisa 374 SCRA 498, the Supreme Court upheld that the disposition of a conjugal property by the husband as administrator in appropriate cases requires the written consent of the wife otherwise the disposition is void. As shown by the foregoing, it is clear that you have all the legal basis to file a suit.

Very truly yours, MGDR LAW OFFICE

LEGAL MEMORANDUM AND LEGAL OPINION

Submitted to: Atty. Teresita L. Cruz Submitted by: Del Rosario, Maureen Grace J.