Dear PAO,

Marina was married to Dindo, and she sold to me a parcel of land without the consent of her husband. The deed of sale was registered in 2001, and a corresponding title was issued in my name. Last year, Dindo filed a complaint against me before the barangay, claiming that the sale was invalid because he did not sign the deed of sale. I told him that he cannot recover the land and assumed that any action he had against me had already been prescribed. Am I correct?

Juanderine

Dear Juanderine,

The provision of the Family Code of the Philippines, which governs the disposition made by Marina, apparently covering a property belonging to the conjugal property or absolute community she has with her husband Dindo, is Article 124, which provides that:

“The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for 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 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as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.”

Thus, the written consent of both spouses in the disposition of a property belonging to the absolute community is important as this would affect the validity of the sale or donation. Any disposition made in contravention of the aforestated provision of the law may be challenged anytime. This is exactly the judicial pronouncement in the case of Alexander vs. Spouses Escalona and Escalona, GR 256141. July 19, 2022, where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, stated that:

“Thus, it is an opportune time for the Court to clarify any confusion besetting the applicable laws and jurisprudence in transactions involving alienation or encumbrance of conjugal properties, without consent of the other spouse, which is determinative of the remedies available to the aggrieved parties and the prescriptive period of actions. At this juncture, the Court holds that more than the date of the marriage of the spouses, the applicable law must be reckoned on the date of the alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal property made without the consent of the other spouse, to wit:

xxx

“2. The alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal property, without the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse, made after the effectivity of the Family Code is void. The applicable Jaw is Article 124 of the Family Code without prejudice to vested rights in the property acquired before Aug. 3, 1988. Unless the transaction is accepted by the non-consenting spouse or is authorized by the court, an action for declaration of nullity of the contract may be filed before the continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person becomes ineffective.”

Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, the disposition made by Marina involving the property belonging to the conjugal partnership or absolute community, as the case may be, without the corresponding written consent of her husband Dindo is void. However, while void, the action to nullify the sale is not imprescriptible. Rather, an action for the declaration of nullity of the contract may be filed before the continuing offer between the consenting spouse and the third person becomes ineffective.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]