9/7/2014 G.R. No.

169900

SECOND DIVISION

MARIO SIOCHI, G.R. No. 169900

Petitioner,

- versus -

ALFREDO GOZON,
WINIFRED GOZON, GIL TABIJE,
INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC.,
and ELVIRA GOZON,
Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. NO. 169977
INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY,
INC., Present:
Petitioner,
CARPIO, J.,
CHAIRPERSON,
- versus- BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, AND
PEREZ, JJ.
MARIO SIOCHI, ELVIRA GOZON,
ALFREDO GOZON, AND
Promulgated:
WINIFRED GOZON,
MARCH 18, 2010
Respondents.

X-------------------------------------------------- X

RESOLUTION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 1/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900

CARPIO, J.:

[1]
This is a consolidation of two separate petitions for review, assailing the 7 July
[2] [3]
2005 Decision and the 30 September 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 74447.

THIS CASE INVOLVES A 30,000 SQ.M. PARCEL OF LAND (PROPERTY)

[4]
COVERED BY TCT NO. 5357. THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN MALABON,
METRO MANILA AND IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF “ALFREDO GOZON
(ALFREDO), MARRIED TO ELVIRA GOZON (ELVIRA).”

ON 23 DECEMBER 1991, ELVIRA FILED WITH THE CAVITE CITY

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (CAVITE RTC) A PETITION FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION AGAINST HER HUSBAND ALFREDO. ON 2 JANUARY 1992,
ELVIRA FILED A NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS, WHICH WAS THEN ANNOTATED
ON TCT NO. 5357.

ON 31 AUGUST 1993, WHILE THE LEGAL SEPARATION CASE WAS STILL

PENDING, ALFREDO AND MARIO SIOCHI (MARIO) ENTERED INTO AN
[5]
AGREEMENT TO BUY AND SELL (AGREEMENT) INVOLVING THE
PROPERTY FOR THE PRICE OF P18 MILLION. AMONG THE STIPULATIONS IN
THE AGREEMENT WERE THAT ALFREDO WOULD: (1) SECURE AN
AFFIDAVIT FROM ELVIRA THAT THE PROPERTY IS ALFREDO’S EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY AND TO ANNOTATE THE AGREEMENT AT THE BACK OF TCT NO.
5357; (2) SECURE THE APPROVAL OF THE CAVITE RTC TO EXCLUDE THE
PROPERTY FROM THE LEGAL SEPARATION CASE; AND (3) SECURE THE
REMOVAL OF THE NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS PERTAINING TO THE SAID
CASE AND ANNOTATED ON TCT NO. 5357. HOWEVER, DESPITE REPEATED
DEMANDS FROM MARIO, ALFREDO FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THESE
STIPULATIONS. AFTER PAYING THE P5 MILLION EARNEST MONEY AS
PARTIAL PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE, MARIO TOOK POSSESSION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 2/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900

OF THE PROPERTY IN SEPTEMBER 1993. ON 6 SEPTEMBER 1993, THE

AGREEMENT WAS ANNOTATED ON TCT NO. 5357.
[6]
Meanwhile, on 29 June 1994, the Cavite RTC rendered a decision in the legal separation
case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered decreeing the legal separation between
petitioner and respondent. Accordingly, petitioner Elvira Robles Gozon is entitled to live
separately from respondent Alfredo Gozon without dissolution of their marriage bond. The
conjugal partnership of gains of the spouses is hereby declared DISSOLVED and
LIQUIDATED. Being the offending spouse, respondent is deprived of his share in the net profits
and the same is awarded to their child Winifred R. Gozon whose custody is awarded to
petitioner.

FURTHERMORE, SAID PARTIES ARE REQUIRED TO MUTUALLY SUPPORT THEIR CHILD

WINIFRED R. GOZON AS HER NEEDS ARISES.

[7]
SO ORDERED.

As regards the property, the Cavite RTC held that it is deemed conjugal property.

ON 22 AUGUST 1994, ALFREDO EXECUTED A DEED OF DONATION OVER

THE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THEIR DAUGHTER, WINIFRED GOZON
(WINIFRED). THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON, GIL TABIJE,
[8]
CANCELLED TCT NO. 5357 AND ISSUED TCT NO. M-10508 IN THE NAME OF
WINIFRED, WITHOUT ANNOTATING THE AGREEMENT AND THE NOTICE OF
LIS PENDENS ON TCT NO. M-10508.

ON 26 OCTOBER 1994, ALFREDO, BY VIRTUE OF A SPECIAL POWER OF

[9]
ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOR BY WINIFRED, SOLD THE
PROPERTY TO INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC. (IDRI) FOR P18 MILLION.
[10]
IDRI PAID ALFREDO P18 MILLION, REPRESENTING FULL PAYMENT FOR
[11]
THE PROPERTY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
[12]
MALABON CANCELLED TCT NO. M-10508 AND ISSUED TCT NO. M-10976
TO IDRI.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 3/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900

MARIO THEN FILED WITH THE MALABON REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

(MALABON RTC) A COMPLAINT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND
DAMAGES, ANNULMENT OF DONATION AND SALE, WITH PRELIMINARY
MANDATORY AND PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER.

[13]
ON 3 APRIL 2001, THE MALABON RTC RENDERED A DECISION, THE
DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF WHICH READS:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED

AS FOLLOWS:
01. On the preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction:
1.1 THE SAME IS HEREBY MADE PERMANENT BY:
1.1.1 ENJOINING DEFENDANTS ALFREDO GOZON, WINIFRED
GOZON, INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC. AND GIL TABIJE,
THEIR AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES AND ALL PERSONS ACTING
IN THEIR BEHALF FROM ANY ATTEMPT OF COMMISSION OR
CONTINUANCE OF THEIR WRONGFUL ACTS OF FURTHER
ALIENATING OR DISPOSING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY;
1.1.2. ENJOINING DEFENDANT INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC. FROM ENTERING AND
FENCING THE PROPERTY;
1.1.3. ENJOINING DEFENDANTS ALFREDO GOZON, WINIFRED GOZON, INTER-DIMENSIONAL
REALTY, INC. TO RESPECT PLAINTIFF’S POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.
02. THE AGREEMENT TO BUY AND SELL DATED 31 AUGUST 1993,
BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ALFREDO GOZON IS HEREBY
APPROVED, EXCLUDING THE PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT ELVIRA
ROBLES-GOZON TO THE UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF SHARE IN THE CONJUGAL
PROPERTY SUBJECT OF THIS CASE.
03. THE DEED OF DONATION DATED 22 AUGUST 1994, ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN
DEFENDANTS ALFREDO GOZON AND WINIFRED GOZON IS HEREBY NULLIFIED AND
VOIDED.
04. THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE DATED 26 OCTOBER 1994, EXECUTED BY DEFENDANT
WINIFRED GOZON, THROUGH DEFENDANT ALFREDO GOZON, IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC. IS HEREBY NULLIFIED AND VOIDED.
05. DEFENDANT INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC. IS HEREBY ORDERED TO DELIVER ITS
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. M-10976 TO THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON,
METRO MANILA.
06. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON, METRO MANILA IS HEREBY ORDERED TO
CANCEL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NOS. 10508 “IN THE NAME OF WINIFRED GOZON” AND M-
10976 “IN THE NAME OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC.,” AND TO RESTORE TRANSFER
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 5357 “IN THE NAME OF ALFREDO GOZON, MARRIED TO ELVIRA
ROBLES” WITH THE AGREEMENT TO BUY AND SELL DATED 31 AUGUST 1993 FULLY
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 4/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900

ANNOTATED THEREIN IS HEREBY ORDERED.

07. DEFENDANT ALFREDO GOZON IS HEREBY ORDERED TO DELIVER A DEED OF ABSOLUTE
SALE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF OVER HIS ONE-HALF UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTERING SUCH
DEED.
08. ORDERING DEFENDANT ELVIRA ROBLES-GOZON TO SIT WITH PLAINTIFF TO AGREE ON
THE SELLING PRICE OF HER UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF SHARE IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
THEREAFTER, TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER A DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE OVER THE SAME IN
FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
REGISTERING SUCH DEED, WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS
DECISION.
09. THEREAFTER, PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY ORDERED TO PAY DEFENDANT ALFREDO GOZON
THE BALANCE OF FOUR MILLION PESOS (P4,000,000.00) IN HIS ONE-HALF UNDIVIDED
SHARE IN THE PROPERTY TO BE SET OFF BY THE AWARD OF DAMAGES IN PLAINTIFF’S
FAVOR.
10. PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY ORDERED TO PAY THE DEFENDANT ELVIRA ROBLES-GOZON THE
PRICE THEY HAD AGREED UPON FOR THE SALE OF HER ONE-HALF UNDIVIDED SHARE IN
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
11. DEFENDANTS ALFREDO GOZON, WINIFRED GOZON AND GIL TABIJE ARE HEREBY
ORDERED TO PAY THE PLAINTIFF, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, THE FOLLOWING:
11.1 TWO MILLION PESOS (P2,000,000.00) AS ACTUAL AND
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES;
11.2 ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) AS MORAL DAMAGES;
11.3 FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) AS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES;
11.4 FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00) AS ATTORNEY’S FEES; AND
11.5 ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) AS LITIGATION EXPENSES.
11.6 THE ABOVE AWARDS ARE SUBJECT TO SET OFF OF PLAINTIFF’S OBLIGATION IN
PARAGRAPH 9 HEREOF.
12. DEFENDANTS ALFREDO GOZON AND WINIFRED GOZON ARE
HEREBY ORDERED TO PAY INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC. JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY THE FOLLOWING:
12.1 EIGHTEEN MILLION PESOS (P18,000,000.00) WHICH CONSTITUTE THE
AMOUNT THE FORMER RECEIVED FROM THE LATTER PURSUANT TO
THEIR DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE DATED 26 OCTOBER 1994, WITH LEGAL
INTEREST THEREFROM;
12.2 ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) AS MORAL DAMAGES;
12.3 FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) AS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; AND
12.4 ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) AS ATTORNEY’S FEES.
13. DEFENDANTS ALFREDO GOZON AND WINIFRED GOZON ARE
HEREBY ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF SUIT.

[14]
SO ORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 5/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900

ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE MALABON RTC’S

DECISION WITH MODIFICATION. THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS’ DECISION DATED 7 JULY 2005 READS:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, THE ASSAILED DECISION DATED
APRIL 3, 2001 OF THE RTC, BRANCH 74, MALABON IS HEREBY AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATIONS, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE SALE OF THE SUBJECT LAND BY DEFENDANT ALFREDO GOZON TO PLAINTIFF-

APPELLANT SIOCHI IS DECLARED NULL AND VOID FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
A) THE CONVEYANCE WAS DONE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
ELVIRA GOZON;
B) DEFENDANT ALFREDO GOZON’S ONE-HALF (½) UNDIVIDED SHARE HAS BEEN
FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF HIS DAUGHTER, DEFENDANT WINIFRED GOZON, BY VIRTUE OF
THE DECISION IN THE LEGAL SEPARATION CASE RENDERED BY THE RTC, BRANCH 16,
CAVITE;
2. DEFENDANT ALFREDO GOZON SHALL RETURN/DELIVER TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
SIOCHI THE AMOUNT OF P5 MILLION WHICH THE LATTER PAID AS EARNEST MONEY IN
CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE SUBJECT LAND;
3. DEFENDANTS ALFREDO GOZON, WINIFRED GOZON AND GIL TABIJE ARE HEREBY
ORDERED TO PAY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT SIOCHI JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, THE
FOLLOWING:
A) P100,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES;
B) P100,000.00 AS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES;
C) P50,000.00 AS ATTORNEY’S FEES;
D) P20,000.00 AS LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND
E) THE AWARDS OF ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE
HEREBY ORDERED DELETED FOR LACK OF BASIS.
4. DEFENDANTS ALFREDO GOZON AND WINIFRED GOZON ARE HEREBY
ORDERED TO PAY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IDRI JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY
THE FOLLOWING:
A) P100,000.00 AS MORAL
DAMAGES;
B) P100,000.00 AS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES;
AND
C) P50,000.00 AS ATTORNEY’S
FEES.

DEFENDANT WINIFRED GOZON, WHOM

THE UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF SHARE OF DEFENDANT ALFREDO GOZON WAS AWARDED, IS
HEREBY GIVEN THE OPTION WHETHER OR NOT TO DISPOSE OF HER UNDIVIDED SHARE IN
THE SUBJECT LAND.

THE REST OF THE DECISION NOT

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 6/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900

INCONSISTENT WITH THIS RULING STANDS.

SO
[15]
ORDERED.

Only Mario and IDRI appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals. In his petition,
Mario alleges that the Agreement should be treated as a continuing offer which may be
perfected by the acceptance of the other spouse before the offer is withdrawn. Since
Elvira’s conduct signified her acquiescence to the sale, Mario prays for the Court to direct
Alfredo and Elvira to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property upon his payment
of P9 million to Elvira.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IDRI ALLEGES THAT IT IS A BUYER IN GOOD

FAITH AND FOR VALUE. THUS, IDRI PRAYS THAT THE COURT SHOULD
UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF IDRI’S TCT NO. M-10976 OVER THE PROPERTY.

WE FIND THE PETITIONS WITHOUT MERIT.

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE CONJUGAL PROPERTY OF ALFREDO AND

ELVIRA. SINCE THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY OCCURRED AFTER
THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE FAMILY CODE, THE APPLICABLE LAW IS THE
FAMILY CODE. ARTICLE 124 OF THE FAMILY CODE PROVIDES:
Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall
belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail,
subject to the recourse to the court by the wife for a proper remedy, which must be availed of
within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

IN THE EVENT THAT ONE SPOUSE IS INCAPACITATED OR OTHERWISE UNABLE

TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONJUGAL PROPERTIES, THE
OTHER SPOUSE MAY ASSUME SOLE POWERS OF ADMINISTRATION. THESE POWERS
DO NOT INCLUDE THE POWERS OF DISPOSITION OR ENCUMBRANCE WHICH MUST
HAVE THE 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. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 7/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900

In this case, Alfredo was the sole administrator of the property because Elvira, with
whom Alfredo was separated in fact, was unable to participate in the administration of the
conjugal property. However, as sole administrator of the property, Alfredo still cannot sell
the property without the written consent of Elvira or the authority of the court. Without
[16]
such consent or authority, the sale is void. The absence of the consent of one of the
spouse renders the entire sale void, including the portion of the conjugal property
[17]
pertaining to the spouse who contracted the sale. Even if the other spouse actively
participated in negotiating for the sale of the property, that other spouse’s written consent
[18]
to the sale is still required by law for its validity. The Agreement entered into by
Alfredo and Mario was without the written consent of Elvira. Thus, the Agreement is
entirely void. As regards Mario’s contention that the Agreement is a continuing offer which
may be perfected by Elvira’s acceptance before the offer is withdrawn, the fact that the
property was subsequently donated by Alfredo to Winifred and then sold to IDRI clearly
indicates that the offer was already withdrawn.

However, we disagree with the finding of the Court of Appeals that the one-half
undivided share of Alfredo in the property was already forfeited in favor of his daughter
Winifred, based on the ruling of the Cavite RTC in the legal separation case. The Court of
Appeals misconstrued the ruling of the Cavite RTC that Alfredo, being the offending
spouse, is deprived of his share in the net profits and the same is awarded to Winifred.

THE CAVITE RTC RULING FINDS SUPPORT IN THE FOLLOWING

PROVISIONS OF THE FAMILY CODE:

ART. 63. THE DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION SHALL HAVE THE

FOLLOWING EFFECTS:
(1) THE SPOUSES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO LIVE SEPARATELY FROM
EACH OTHER, BUT THE MARRIAGE BONDS SHALL NOT BE SEVERED;
(2) THE ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OR THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
SHALL BE DISSOLVED AND LIQUIDATED BUT THE OFFENDING
SPOUSE SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT TO ANY SHARE OF THE NET
PROFITS EARNED BY THE ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OR THE
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP, WHICH SHALL BE FORFEITED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 43(2);
(3) THE CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN SHALL BE AWARDED TO
THE INNOCENT SPOUSE, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 8/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900

213 OF THIS CODE; AND

THE OFFENDING SPOUSE SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED FROM INHERITING FROM THE
INNOCENT SPOUSE BY INTESTATE SUCCESSION. MOREOVER, PROVISIONS IN FAVOR OF
THE OFFENDING SPOUSE MADE IN THE WILL OF THE INNOCENT SPOUSE SHALL BE
REVOKED BY OPERATION OF LAW.

Art. 43. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the
following effects:
XXX
(2) THE ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY OR THE CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE DISSOLVED AND
LIQUIDATED, BUT IF EITHER SPOUSE CONTRACTED SAID MARRIAGE IN BAD
FAITH, HIS OR HER SHARE OF THE NET PROFITS OF THE COMMUNITY
PROPERTY OR CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY SHALL BE
FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF THE COMMON CHILDREN OR, IF THERE ARE
NONE, THE CHILDREN OF THE GUILTY SPOUSE BY A PREVIOUS MARRIAGE OR,
IN DEFAULT OF CHILDREN, THE INNOCENT SPOUSE; (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)

Thus, among the effects of the decree of legal separation is that the conjugal
partnership is dissolved and liquidated and the offending spouse would have no right to
any share of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership. It is only Alfredo’s share in
the net profits which is forfeited in favor of Winifred. Article 102(4) of the Family Code
provides that “[f]or purposes of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture in
accordance with Article 43, No. (2) and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall be the increase in
value between the market value of the community property at the time of the celebration of
the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution.” Clearly, what is forfeited in
favor of Winifred is not Alfredo’s share in the conjugal partnership property but merely in
the net profits of the conjugal partnership property.

WITH REGARD TO IDRI, WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS IN

HOLDING THAT IDRI IS NOT A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH. AS FOUND BY THE
RTC MALABON AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, IDRI HAD ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SHOULD IMPEL A
REASONABLY CAUTIOUS PERSON TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES ABOUT
THE VENDOR’S TITLE TO THE PROPERTY. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF IDRI
TESTIFIED THAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE NOTICE OF LIS
PENDENS ON TCT NO. 5357 AND THE LEGAL SEPARATION CASE FILED
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 9/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900

BEFORE THE CAVITE RTC. THUS, IDRI COULD NOT FEIGN IGNORANCE OF
THE CAVITE RTC DECISION DECLARING THE PROPERTY AS CONJUGAL.

Furthermore, if IDRI made further inquiries, it would have known that the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens was highly irregular. Under Section 77 of
[19]
Presidential Decree No. 1529, the notice of lis pendens may be cancelled (a) upon
order of the court, or (b) by the Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who
caused the registration of the lis pendens. In this case, the lis pendens was cancelled by
the Register of Deeds upon the request of Alfredo. There was no court order for the
cancellation of the lis pendens. Neither did Elvira, the party who caused the registration of
the lis pendens, file a verified petition for its cancellation.

Besides, had IDRI been more prudent before buying the property, it would have
discovered that Alfredo’s donation of the property to Winifred was without the consent of
[20]
Elvira. Under Article 125 of the Family Code, a conjugal property cannot be donated
by one spouse without the consent of the other spouse. Clearly, IDRI was not a buyer in
good faith.

Nevertheless, we find it proper to reinstate the order of the Malabon RTC for the
reimbursement of the P18 million paid by IDRI for the property, which was inadvertently
omitted in the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petitions. We AFFIRM the 7 July 2005 Decision

of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74447 with the following
MODIFICATIONS:

(1) We DELETE the portions regarding the forfeiture of Alfredo Gozon’s one-half
undivided share in favor of Winifred Gozon and the grant of option to Winifred Gozon
whether or not to dispose of her undivided share in the property; and

(2) We ORDER Alfredo Gozon and Winifred Gozon to pay Inter-Dimensional

Realty, Inc. jointly and severally the Eighteen Million Pesos (P18,000,000) which was the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 10/13