12 Siochi Vs Gozon
12 Siochi Vs Gozon
169900
SECOND DIVISION
- 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.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 2/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900
[7]
SO ORDERED.
As regards the property, the Cavite RTC held that it is deemed conjugal property.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 3/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900
[13]
ON 3 APRIL 2001, THE MALABON RTC RENDERED A DECISION, THE
DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF WHICH READS:
[14]
SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 5/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 6/13
9/7/2014 G.R. No. 169900
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perfected by the acceptance of the other spouse before the offer is withdrawn.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.
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.
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.
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.
(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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169900.htm 10/13