Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Hrs. of Reyes vs. Mijares

    Uploaded by

    rhodz 88
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of a conjugal property between Spouses Reyes and Mijares. Vicente Reyes falsely claimed that his wife Ignacia had died and sold her share of their property to the Mijares without her consent. The court ruled the sale was void in its entirety, not just Ignacia's share, as Vicente did not have her consent as required. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that under the law, the lack of consent of an indispensable party like a spouse makes the entire contract void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hrs. of Reyes vs. Mijares

    Uploaded by

    rhodz 88
    40 views3 pages
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of a conjugal property between Spouses Reyes and Mijares. Vicente Reyes falsely claimed that his wife Ignacia had died and sold her share of their property to the Mijares without her consent. The court ruled the sale was void in its entirety, not just Ignacia's share, as Vicente did not have her consent as required. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that under the law, the lack of consent of an indispensable party like a spouse makes the entire contract void.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over the sale of a conjugal property between Spouses Reyes and Mijares. Vicente Reyes falsely claimed that his wife Ignacia had died and sold her share of their property to the Mijares without her consent. The court ruled the sale was void in its entirety, not just Ignacia's share, as Vicente did not have her consent as required. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that under the law, the lack of consent of an indispensable party like a spouse makes the entire contract void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views3 pages

    Hrs. of Reyes vs. Mijares

    Uploaded by

    rhodz 88
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of a conjugal property between Spouses Reyes and Mijares. Vicente Reyes falsely claimed that his wife Ignacia had died and sold her share of their property to the Mijares without her consent. The court ruled the sale was void in its entirety, not just Ignacia's share, as Vicente did not have her consent as required. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that under the law, the lack of consent of an indispensable party like a spouse makes the entire contract void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Hrs. of Reyes vs. Mijares, G.R. No.

    143826, August 28, 2003

    FACTS: In 1960, Vicente Reyes married Ignacia Aguilar but


    they had been separated de facto in1974. One of their
    conjugal properties is Lot No. 4349 B-2 and the apartment
    built thereon. The said lot was registered in the name of
    Spouses Vicente Reyes and Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes. Vicente
    Reyes filed a petition for administration and appointment of
    guardian with the MTC . In the said petition, he
    misrepresented that his wife, Ignacia, died on March 12,
    1982 and that he and their minor children were her only
    heirs.

    The court appointed Vicente as guardian of their minor


    children and subsequently authorized Vicente to sell the
    estate of Ignacia. On March 1,1983, respondent Spouses
    Cipriano and Florentina Mijares bought Lot No. 4349-B-2
    for P110,000. As a consequence of which, the certificate of
    title in the name of Vicente and Ignacia Agilar-Reyes was
    cancelled and a new title was issued in the name of
    respondent-spouses. These circumstances were discovered
    by Ignacia sometime in 1984.

    Ignacia then sent a letter to respondent-spouses demanding


    the return of her 1⁄2 share in the lot. Failing to settle the
    matter amicably, Ignacia instituted a complaint for
    annulment of sale against respondent-spouses and Vicente
    was included as one of the defendants.

    In their answer, respondents claimed that they are


    purchasers in good faith and that the sale was valid
    because the same was duly approved by the court. After
    trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered a decision
    declaring the sale of Lot No.4349-B-2 void with respect to
    the share of Ignacia. A motion for modification of the
    decision was filed by Ignacia praying that the sale be
    declared void in its entirety and that the respondent’s be
    ordered to reimburse the rentals collected on the
    apartments.

    The trial court granted the motion for modification. Both


    Ignacia and respondent-spouses appealed to the Court of
    Appeals. Pending the appeal, Ignacia died and was
    substituted by her compulsory heirs.

    The appellate court reversed the decision of the court a quo,


    ruling that, notwithstanding the absence of Iganacia’s
    consent to the sale, the same must be held valid in favor of
    respondent-spouses because they were innocent purchasers
    for value.

    Petitioner’s Contention (Heirs of Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes)


    Petitioners filed the instant petition contending that the
    assailed sale of Lot No. 4392-B-2 should be annulled
    because respondent spouses were not purchasers in good
    faith.

    Respondent’s Contention (Spouses Mijares)


    Respondent spouses claimed that they are purchasers in
    good faith and that the sale was valid because it was duly
    approved by the court.

    ISSUE: If the sale of the conjugal real property is annullable,


    should it be annulled in its entirety or only with respect to the
    share of the spouse who did not give consent?

    RULING
    The SC citing Paulino vs. Bucoy (131 Phil 790) held that the
    plain meaning attached to the plain language of the law is
    that the contract, in its entirety, executed by the husband
    without the wife’s consent, may be annulled by the wife.
    Had Congress intended to limit such annulment in so far as
    the contract shall “prejudice” the wife, such limitation
    should have been spelled out in the statute. To be
    underscored here is that upon the provisions of Articles
    161, 162 and 163 of the Civil Code, the conjugal
    partnership is liable for many obligations while the conjugal
    partnership exists. Not only that. The conjugal partnership
    is even subject to the payment of debts contracted by either
    spouse before the marriage, as those for the payment of
    fines and indemnities imposed upon them after the
    responsibilities in Article 161 have been covered, if it turns
    out that the spouse who is bound thereby, “should have no
    exclusive property or if it be insufficient.” These are the
    considerations that go beyond the mere equitable share of
    the wife in the property. These are reasons enough for the
    husband to be stopped from disposing of the conjugal
    property without the consent of the wife. Even more
    fundamental is the fact that the nullity is decreed by the
    Code not on the basis of prejudice but lack of consent of an
    indispensable party to the contract under Article 166.

    A sale or encumbrance of conjugal or (community) property


    concluded after the effectivity of the Family Code on August
    3, 1988, is governed by Article 124 of the same Code that
    now treats such a disposition as void if done without the
    conjoint consent of the spouses or, in case of a spouse’s
    inability, the authority of the court.

    You might also like