Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-48403

October 28, 1942

AGUSTIN DE LUNA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants,

vs.
JOSE LINATOC, respondent-appellee.
Clara M. Recto for petitioners.
Jose Mayo Librea for respondent.
BOCOBO, J.:
1. APPEAL AND ERROR; INQUIRY BY SUPREME COURT INTO CONCLUSION OF FACT
MADE BY COURT OF APPEALS. The Court of Appeals found that no deceit had been
committed by appellee upon appellants. This conclusion of fact is drawn from certain facts
which are either undisputed of have been clearly established by the evidence. When may the
Supreme Court review or question such deduction of fact based on uncotroverted or plain
evidence? Only when reasonable men readily agree that the inference is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible. If, however, fairminded men may differ on whether or not the main
conclusion of fact is rightly drawn from the undisputed evidence, the Supreme Court should not,
as a rule, inquire into the discretion exercised by the Court of Appeals. The instant case is of the
latter category, because the findings of the Court of Appeals that there has been no deceit may
or may not be persuasive, according to one's own reasoning after reading the decision and
resolution of that court. It cannot be said that fair-minded men will not differ in this case on the
existence of fraud. Held: That the Supreme Court cannot examine the question of whether or
not the Court of Appeals was right when that tribunal concluded from the uncontroverted
evidence that there had been deceit.
2. CONFIRMATION, RATIFICATION AND RECOGNITION DISTINGUISHED; AUTHORITY OF
WIFE TO SELL PROPERTY OF THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP. A careful analysis of
Exhibit I reveals that the same is neither a confirmation nor a ratification of the sale made by the
wife, but is what Spanish jurists call a "reconocimiento" or recognition. Confirmation tends to
cure a vice of nullity, and ratification is for the purpose of giving authority to a person who
previously acted in the name of another without authority. Recognition, on the other hand, is
merely to cure a defect of proof. In recognition, there is no vice to be remedied, such as fraud,
violence or mistake, as the case is distinguished from confirmation. In recognition, the person
acting on behalf of another is duly authorized to do so, so the situation is different from
ratification. The instant case is one of recognition because the husband was not trying to
cleanse the sales of all taint, such as fraud, violence or mistake, nor was it his purpose to confer
authority to his wife, because he stated in Exhibit I: "when my wife sold said lands to J. L. she
did so with my knowledge and consent. Thus the requirement in the statute of frauds that in a
sale of real property the authority of the agent should be in writing, has been complied with.
Therefore, she was only acting as his agent.
3. ID.; ID.; ILLEGALITY OF PARTITION BETWEEN SPOUSES MADE DURING MARRIAGE.
However, as such agent, the wife could not sell her portions of those lands in the name of her
husband, because the partition was illegal and void, as it was made during the marriage and
there was no judicial order authorizing separation of property between the husband and the wife
(art. 1432, Civil Code). Consequently, the character of these portions of lands as conjugal
partnership assests. And the wife may bind the conjugal partnership with the consent of the
husband, according to article 1614 of the Civil Code.
4. ID.; ID.; MISTAKE OF LAW DOES NOT RENDER CONTRACT VOIDABLE. Mistake of law
does not make a contract voidable, because ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from
its compliance (art. 2, Civil Code; 8 Manresa, 646, 2d ed.). That the petitioners did not know the
prohibition against partition of the conjugal partnership property during marriage (art. 1432, Civil
Code) is no valid reason why they should ask for the annulment of the sales made Exhibits C
and D and recognized in Exhibit I.
5. ID.; ID.; NO MAN CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS WRONG. Moreover, there is the timehonored legal maxim that no man can take advantage of his own wrong. To repudiate the sales
in question, petitioners are setting up their own wrongful act of partitioning their conjugal
property, which violated article 1432 of the Civil Code. The prohibition in said article affects
public policy, as it is designed to protect creditors of the conjugal partnership and other third
persons. Petitioners shall not, therefore, be allowed thus to rest their cause of action to recover

Page 1 of 2

the lands sold, upon the illegality of the partition which they attempted to make. Otherwise, they
would profit by their own unlawful act.
6. ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 1248 OF THE CIVIL CODE. Finally, the contracts of the sale in Exhibits
C and D and the deed of recognition Exhibit I are susceptible of two interpretations, one of
which leads to their invalidity and legality, and the other to their validity and legality. The former
construction is that these contracts refer to the separate property of the wife as a result of the
partition, and the latter interpretation is that these deeds have as their subject matter the
conjugal partnership property. This latter interpretation is not only proper as already indicated
but is also warranted by the rules of interpretation of contracts. This construction is, therefore,
adopted, which recognizes the binding character of these three deeds. The Civil Code in article
1284 provides: "If some clause of contracts admits of various meanings, is should be
understood as that which is most adequate to make it effective."
PETITION for review on certiorari.lawphil.net

Page 2 of 2