Case Digest (G.R. No. 74833)
Facts:
Thomas C. Cheesman v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Estelita Padilla, G.R. No. 74833, January 21, 1991, First Division, Supreme Court, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.Thomas C. Cheesman (petitioner) and his wife Criselda P. Cheesman were married on December 4, 1970 and separated in February 1981. On June 4, 1974 Armando Altares executed a Deed of Sale conveying an unregistered parcel and house in Gordon Heights, Olongapo City, to Criselda P. Cheesman, the deed naming her alone as purchaser; petitioner knew of that deed but did not object. Tax declarations were thereafter issued in Criselda’s name alone, and she exercised exclusive management of the property, leasing it to tenants.
In July 1981 (variously recorded in the record as July 1 and July 12, 1981) Criselda sold the property to Estelita M. Padilla without petitioner’s knowledge or written consent. Thirty days later, on July 31, 1981, petitioner sued in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court), Olongapo City, to annul the sale for lack of his consent. The defendants answered, asserting the property was paraphernal (bought with Criselda’s separate funds), that petitioner as an American was disqualified to acquire land, and that Estelita was a purchaser in good faith.
A pre-trial order (Oct. 22, 1981) and subsequent proceedings produced an initial judgment (June 24, 1982) voiding the sale and ordering delivery of the property to petitioner as administrator of conjugal partnership. That judgment, however, was set aside as to Estelita upon her petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38) on grounds of fraud, mistake and/or excusable negligence; new proceedings followed. Estelita filed a supplemental answer and moved for summary judgment; following a stipulation of facts at hearing, the trial court rendered summary judgment (dated August 3, 1982 in the record) declaring the sale to Estelita valid and dismissing petitioner’s complaint. The trial court found (1) the property was paraphernal, (2) petitioner’s alienage disqualified him from ownership, and (3) petitioner’s conduct estopped him from impugning the sale, construing Article 160 and Article 1473 of the Civil Code.
Petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which on January 7, 1986 affirmed the summary judgment. Petitioner then brought this Rule 45 petition for review on cert...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- In a Rule 45 petition, may the Supreme Court review and disturb the factual findings of the Court of Appeals/Intermediate Appellate Court?
- Was the sale by Criselda to Estelita void for lack of petitioner’s consent and because the property was presumptively conjugal under Article 160 of the Civil Code?
- Was Estelita entitled to relief under Rule 38 (fraud, mistake or excusable negligence), and did petitioner waive his objection by failing to appeal the interlocutory order granting relief?
- Can petitioner, an American citizen, assert and recover rights in the subject land acquired during the marriage despite the consti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)