Está en la página 1de 1

Alinas vs Alinas

The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal property shall belong to the spouses jointly. These powers of administration do not include the disposition of and encumbrance, which can only be done by the authority of the court or with the written consent of the other spouse. FACTS: Petitioners (Onesiforo and wife) separated in 1982 leaving behind two lots: o Lot 896-B-9-A with a bodega (LOT A) o Lot 896-B-9-B with the petitioners' house (LOT B) (This is the Lot which talks about conjugal partnership of gains) Petitioners entrusted both properties to respondents (Victor and wife) with the agreement that any income from rentals should be remitted to the SSS and to the Rural Bank of Oroquieta City (RBO) as the rentals would be for payment of petitioners' loans. Sometime in 1993, petitioners find out that both lots were titled in respondents' name. Apparently both LOTS were foreclosed, and reacquired by respondents Furthermore, records show that Onesiforo executed Absolute Deed of Sale, dated March 10 1989, selling LOT B to Victor. Petitioners file for recovery of lots RTC renders decision: Lot A is respondents'. The sale of LOT B, is null and void, since Onesiforo sold w/o wife's consent Respondents file with CA CA renders decision: Lot A is respondents'. LOT B's sale in so far as Rosario's share of 1/2 is concerned is of no force and effect. ISSUE: WON sale conducted by husband without consent of wife to whom he is separated with is void HELD: YES Art 124 of FC says that the absence of authority or consent of wife shall make the disposition or encumberance void. Respondent spouses who bought land (1) knew that it was conjugal property (2) knew that the wife did not know of the selling since they were separated (3) sale documents do not bear the wifes signature, thus they are seen as buyers of bad faith However, petitioners are still ordered by court to reimburse them with interest.