Article 91 - Family Code and Case: Nobleza Vs. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038

Article 91

          Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.

          The law provides for two kinds of properties that shall form part of the absolute community of properties; namely,

(1) All properties owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage;

          (2) All properties acquired after the celebration of the marriage.

          The law provides, however, that even if the parties are governed by the absolute community, they may agree that some properties be exempted form its coverage. If that is so, then, the ante-nuptial agreement embodied in their law further provides that there are properties exclusively belong to them as found in Article 92 of the Family Code.

JOSEFINA V. NOBLEZA, Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY B. NUEGA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 193038, March 11, 2015

Facts:

          Herein petitioner, Shirley B. Nuega, was married to Rogelio A. Nueda. When they were still engaged, Rogelio asked Shirley for money to purchase a parcel of land. Shirley sent money to Rogelio and was able to purchase the said land. Shirley payed for the remaining balance through.

          When Shirley was in Israel, she learned that her husband was having an illicit affair and was introducing the girl as his wife. Shirley then filed a complaint of Legal Separation and concubinage against her husband, and also seeks liquidation of their properties.

          While the case was pending, Shirley learned that the parcel of land that she and her husband procured was sold by her husband to herein petitioner, Josefina V. Nobleza. Shirley filed a petition to declare void the sale of the said parcel of land against Josefina. The Regional Trial Court of Marikana ruled in favor of Shirley and granted the petition. Josefina sought recourse with the CA. The CA denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the RTC of Marikina.

Issue:

          Whether the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC declaring the sale of the assailed parcel of land null and void.

Held:

          No. Article 91 of the Family Code thus provides:

          Art. 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage       settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.

          The only exceptions from the above rule are: (1) those excluded from the absolute community by the Family Code; and (2) those excluded by the marriage settlement.

          Since the subject property does not fall under any of the exclusions provided in Article 92, it therefore forms part of the absolute community property of Shirley and Rogelio. Regardless of their respective contribution to its acquisition before their marriage, and despite the fact that only Rogelio's name appears in the TCT as owner, the property is owned jointly by the spouses Shirley and Rogelio.

          Respondent and Rogelio were married on September 1, 1990. Rogelio, on his own and without the consent of herein respondent as his spouse, sold the subject

property via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1992 - or during the subsistence of a valid contract of marriage. Under Article 96 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as The Family Code of the Philippines, the said disposition of a communal property is void, viz.:

Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the community property 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 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 common properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance without 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.

          It is clear under the foregoing provision of the Family Code that Rogelio could not sell the subject property without the written consent of respondent or the authority of the court. Without such consent or authority, the entire sale is void.