Felipe vs. Aldon. GR No. L-60174, February 16, 1983
Felipe vs. Aldon. GR No. L-60174, February 16, 1983
_____________
* SECOND DIVISION.
629
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1e9f979c90a7b0e003600fb002c009e/p/ANY985/?username=Guest Page 1 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 8/6/20, 12:08 PM
partnership without the consent of the husband and the sale is not
covered by the phrase „except in cases provided by law.‰ The Court
of Appeals described the sale as „invalid‰·a term which is
imprecise when used in relation to contracts because the Civil Code
uses specific names in designating defective contracts, namely:
rescissible (Arts. 1380 et seg.), voidable (Arts. 1390 et seq.),
unenforceable (Arts. 1403, et seq.), and void or inexistent (Arts. 1409
et seq.) The sale made by Gimena is certainly a defective contract
but of what category? The answer: it is a voidable contract.
Same; Sale; A contract of sale of land made by the wife without
the husbandÊs consent is voidable.·The view that the contract made
by Gimena is a voidable contract is supported by the legal provision
that contracts entered by the husband without the consent of the
wife when such consent is required, are annullable at her instance
during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction
questioned. (Art. 173, Civil Code.)
Same; Same; WifeÊs contract of sale can be annulled by the
husband during the marriage, but not by the wife nor their children.
·The voidable contract of Gimena was subject to annulment by her
husband only during the marriage because he was the victim who
had an interest in the contract. Gimena, who was the party
responsible for the defect, could not ask for its annulment. Their
children could not likewise seek the annulment of the contract
while the marriage subsisted because they merely had an inchoate
right to the lands sold.
Same; Same; Actions; Succession; The wife who sold conjugal
lands without her husbandÊs consent cannot bring action for
annulment of the sale even after her husbandÊs death, but their
childrenheirs can with respect to their shares.·The termination of
the marriage and the dissolution of the conjugal partnership by the
death of Maximo Aldon did not improve the situation of Gimena.
What she could not do during the marriage, she could not do
thereafter. The case of Sofia and Salvador Aldon is different. After
the death of Maximo they acquired the right to question the
defective contract insofar as it deprived them of their hereditary
rights in their fatherÊs share in the lands. The fatherÊs share is one-
half (1/2) of the lands and their share is two-thirds (2/3) thereof,
one-third (1/3) pertaining to the widow.
Same; Prescription; Evidence; Fact that son of supposed vendee
still went to the supposed vendors for the latter to sign a deed of sale
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1e9f979c90a7b0e003600fb002c009e/p/ANY985/?username=Guest Page 2 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 8/6/20, 12:08 PM
630
of the land shows that the former knew that the defect in the sale of
the land made by the wife alone. Prescription in such case is 30
years.·This actuation clearly indicated that the appellees knew the
lots did not still belong to them, otherwise, why were they interested
in a document of sale in their favor? Again why did Vicente V.
Felipe tell Gimena that the purpose of the document was to obtain
GimenaÊs consent to the construction of an irrigation pump on the
lots in question? The only possible reason for purporting to obtain
such consent is that the appellees knew the lots were not theirs. Why
was there an attempted improvement (the irrigation tank) only in
1970? Why was the declaration of property made only in 1974? Why
were no attempts made to obtain the husbandÊs signature, despite
the fact that Gimena and Hermogena were close relatives? All these
indicate the bad faith of the appellees. Now then, even if we were to
consider appelleesÊ possession in bad faith as a possession in the
concept of owners, this possession at the earliest started in 1951,
hence the period for extraordinary prescription (30 years) had not
yet lapsed when the present action was instituted on April 26, 1976.
Same; Same; Prescriptive period to file action is counted from
death of the father whose consent was not obtained by his wife in the
sale of conjugal lands, with respect to their heirs.·As to the second
question, the childrenÊs cause of action accrued from the death of
their father in 1959 and they had thirty (30) years to institute it
(Art. 1141, Civil Code.) They filed action in 1976 which is well
within the period.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1e9f979c90a7b0e003600fb002c009e/p/ANY985/?username=Guest Page 3 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 8/6/20, 12:08 PM
631
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1e9f979c90a7b0e003600fb002c009e/p/ANY985/?username=Guest Page 4 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 8/6/20, 12:08 PM
632
„One of the principal issues in the case involves the nature of the
aforementioned conveyance or transaction, with appellants claiming
the same to be an oral contract of mortgage or antichresis, the
redemption of which could be done anytime upon repayment of the
P1,800.00 involved (incidentally the only thing written about the
transaction is the aforementioned receipt re the P1,800). Upon the
other hand, appellees claim that the transaction was one of sale,
accordingly, redemption was improper. The appellees claim that
plaintiffs never conveyed the property because of a loan or mortgage
or antichresis and that what really transpired was the execution of
a contract of sale thru a private document designated as a ÂDeed of
Purchase and SaleÊ (Exhibit 1), the execution having been made by
Gimena Almosara in favor of appellee Hermogena V. Felipe.
„After a study of this case, we have come to the conclusion that
the appellants are entitled to recover the ownership of the lots in
question. We so hold because although Exh. 1 concerning the sale
made in 1951 of the disputed lots is, in Our opinion, not a forgery
the fact is that the sale made by Gimena Almosara is invalid,
having been executed without the needed consent of her husband,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1e9f979c90a7b0e003600fb002c009e/p/ANY985/?username=Guest Page 5 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 8/6/20, 12:08 PM
the lots being conjugal. AppelleesÊ argument that this was an issue
not raised in the pleadings is baseless, considering the fact that the
complaint alleges that the parcels Âwere purchased by plaintiff
Gimena Almosara and her late husband Maximo AldonÊ (the lots
having been purchased during the existence of the marriage, the
same are presumed conjugal) and inferentially, by force of law, could
not, be disposed of by a wife without her husbandÊs consent.‰
633
634
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1e9f979c90a7b0e003600fb002c009e/p/ANY985/?username=Guest Page 7 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 8/6/20, 12:08 PM
635
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1e9f979c90a7b0e003600fb002c009e/p/ANY985/?username=Guest Page 8 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 8/6/20, 12:08 PM
636
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1e9f979c90a7b0e003600fb002c009e/p/ANY985/?username=Guest Page 9 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 8/6/20, 12:08 PM
637
··o0o··
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1e9f979c90a7b0e003600fb002c009e/p/ANY985/?username=Guest Page 10 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 8/6/20, 12:08 PM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1e9f979c90a7b0e003600fb002c009e/p/ANY985/?username=Guest Page 11 of 11