G.R. No. 155043 - Abalos vs. Macatangay, Jr.

Petitioner Arturo R. Abalos and his wife, Esther Palisoc-Abalos, were registered owners of a 327-square-meter parcel of land with improvements at Azucena St., Makati City, covered by TCT No. 145316.
Respondent is Dr. Galicano S. Macatangay, Jr., who sought to purchase the property from the spouses Abalos.

Arturo relied on a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated June 2, 1988, purportedly issued by Esther, authorizing him relative to the disposition of the property.
On October 17, 1989, Arturo executed a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA) in favor of respondent, whereby Arturo bound himself to sell the property to respondent for P1,300,000.00 and not to offer it to others for 30 days; P5,000.00 was acknowledged as “earnest money” to be deducted from the price; full payment to be effected upon turnover of possession.

On October 25, 1989, Esther executed an SPA appointing her sister, Bernadette Ramos, as attorney-in-fact to act on her behalf relative to transfer to respondent.
On November 14, 1989, respondent annotated an adverse claim on the title due to a brewing marital dispute between the spouses.
On November 16, 1989, respondent sent a letter to both spouses expressing readiness and willingness to pay the full price and demanding turnover of possession.

On November 16, 1989, Esther, through her attorney-in-fact, executed a Contract to Sell her conjugal interest to respondent for P650,000.00 (less sums already received), agreeing to surrender possession within 20 days, with respondent to pay the P1,290,000.00 balance after being placed in possession; Esther undertook to execute a deed of absolute sale upon full payment.
On December 7, 1989, respondent informed the spouses he had set aside P1,290,000.00 via Citibank Check No. 278107 as full payment and reiterated demand for possession; another adverse claim was subsequently annotated on TCT No. 145316.

On January 12, 1990, respondent filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against the spouses; Arturo filed an answer; Esther was declared in default.
The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding the purported SPA issued by Esther to Arturo falsified and void, hence no authority to sell; the P5,000.00 check for earnest money was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, and the replacement check was not shown to be for earnest money.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Esther’s SPA to her sister validly effected a sale of her share, and Arturo’s RMOA validly covered his conjugal share; it ordered Arturo and his wife to execute a deed of sale in favor of respondent.
Arturo elevated the case via petition, alleging denial of due process in the CA, error in reversing RTC factual findings, and error in equating a contract to sell with a contract of sale and in ordering execution of a registrable deed.

Whether petitioner was denied due process before the Court of Appeals due to lack of personal service and absence of an appellee’s brief, allegedly caused by his counsel’s absence abroad.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s factual findings, including the finding that the SPA of Esther in favor of Arturo was falsified and that the P5,000.00 check was dishonored.

Whether the RMOA executed by Arturo constituted a perfected contract of sale or a mere option, and if an option, whether it was binding absent a consideration distinct from the price.
Whether respondent made a valid tender of payment to compel specific performance, considering tender was by check and conditioned upon possession.
Whether the P5,000.00 constituted earnest money under Article 1482 of the Civil Code, evidencing a perfected sale.
Whether any sale of the conjugal property (or of the spouses’ respective shares) could be valid absent the written consent of both spouses under Article 166 of the Civil Code.
Whether Esther’s later Contract to Sell through her attorney-in-fact could ratify or cure the nullity of the RMOA and provide the missing spousal consent.
Whether either spouse could validly alienate his or her conjugal “share” prior to dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership.