Title
Bucoy vs. Paulino
Case
G.R. No. L-25775
Decision Date
Apr 26, 1968
Married couple's conjugal properties sold without wife's consent; husband's extramarital affair led to fraudulent transactions. Court annulled sales, upheld mortgages, dismissed intervenors' claims.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25775)

Facts:

Marriage and Business Ventures

Plaintiff Tomasita Bucoy and defendant Reynaldo Paulino were married on October 29, 1936. They engaged in a buy-and-sell business involving PX goods, second-hand cars, and household appliances. With their savings, they acquired seven parcels of land in Angeles, Pampanga, from Severina Realty Corporation on an installment basis.

Construction of Pauline’s Motel

In 1961, the spouses began constructing Pauline’s Motel on six of the lots, which opened for business in July 1962. Due to financial constraints, they obtained materials and furnishings on credit, including from intervenor Tinio Lumber Company, Inc. Reynaldo also borrowed funds from his father, intervenor Leopoldo Paulino, and co-defendant Eufemia Bernardo.

Reynaldo’s Extramarital Affair

In 1957, Reynaldo began an extramarital affair with Eufemia Bernardo, who was aware of his marriage. Their relationship continued, and Eufemia even went to Hong Kong with Reynaldo for business. By 1963, Eufemia was occupying a room in Pauline’s Motel with Reynaldo’s consent, which led to conflict with Tomasita.

Property Transactions and Mortgages

On August 23, 1962, the Torrens title for the six lots was issued in Reynaldo’s name alone, with the word "married" crossed out to indicate he was "single." Reynaldo obtained multiple mortgages from the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) using the properties as collateral. Eufemia facilitated these loans and was involved in the transactions.

Sale of Properties to Eufemia

On June 18, 1963, Reynaldo executed two deeds of absolute sale in favor of Eufemia, covering the six lots and the seventh lot, respectively. However, the checks issued as partial payment were never cashed. On July 1, 1963, Eufemia executed a mortgage on all seven lots to secure a loan from PCIB. A new deed of sale was executed on July 5, 1963, which included the assumption of mortgages.

Litigation

Tomasita filed a complaint on September 19, 1963, seeking to annul the July 5, 1963 deed of sale and cancel the titles issued to Eufemia. She alleged that the transactions were entered into without her consent, in violation of Article 173 of the Civil Code. Reynaldo filed a cross-claim against Eufemia, alleging non-payment and fraud.

Issue:

  1. Whether the properties involved in the litigation are conjugal.
  2. Whether Tomasita is estopped from assailing the deed of sale with assumption of mortgages.
  3. Whether the contracts of sale executed by Reynaldo in favor of Eufemia are null and void due to lack of Tomasita’s consent and fraud.
  4. Whether Reynaldo’s consent to the contracts was vitiated by undue influence or fraud.
  5. Whether Eufemia fully paid the consideration for the properties.
  6. Whether the mortgages in favor of PCIB are valid and enforceable.
  7. Whether the intervenors (Leopoldo Paulino and Tinio Lumber Co., Inc.) have valid claims against Eufemia.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Disposition

The Supreme Court rendered judgment declaring the deeds of sale null and void, ordering Eufemia Bernardo to return the properties to Reynaldo Paulino and Tomasita Bucoy, and directing PCIB to enforce the mortgages. The claims of the intervenors were dismissed, and Eufemia was ordered to pay damages to Tomasita and Reynaldo.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.