Title
Heirs of Caburnay vs. Heirs of Sison
Case
G.R. No. 230934
Decision Date
Dec 2, 2020
Land sale dispute: Teodulo sold property to Apolinario without second spouse's consent. SC ruled sale valid for Teodulo's 9/16 share; petitioners and respondent co-own property.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 230934)

Facts:

  • Parties and Nature of Case
    • Petitioners are the heirs of the late Apolinario Caburnay. Respondents are the heirs of Teodulo Sison, Apolinario’s predecessor-in-interest and seller of the property in dispute.
    • The case involves a complaint filed by petitioners against respondents for specific performance, declaration of nullity of extrajudicial settlement and title, and damages.
    • The dispute concerns a parcel of land sold by Teodulo to Apolinario in 1994, covered originally by TCT No. 8791, approx. 7,768 sqm.
  • Contract of Sale and Payment
    • Sale price: PHP 150,000; initial downpayment PHP 40,000 paid on September 23, 1994, acknowledged by a handwritten receipt.
    • Apolinario’s family occupied the property thereafter.
    • Second installment: PHP 40,000 on August 14, 1996, with another receipt.
    • Third installment: PHP 40,000 on October 20, 1999, with receipt indicating that transfer of title would be made upon payment of the remaining PHP 30,000.
    • Teodulo died December 22, 2000, before full payment and transfer of title.
  • Marital and Property Regime Background
    • Teodulo was married first to Perpetua Sison (died 1989) and later to Perla Sison (married 1992).
    • At the time of sale, Perla was the surviving spouse, and the respondents (children of the first marriage) were co-owners by inheritance from Perpetua.
    • No consent was given by Perla or the children to the sale.
  • Post-Death Events and Disputes
    • Apolinario informed respondents about remaining balance. Jesus Sison (respondent) said title could not be found; no follow-up due to Apolinario’s health.
    • Apolinario died April 2005; his heirs offered to pay balance but were rejected.
    • Respondents executed Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate including the property, which was registered in favor of Jesus via new TCT No. 22388.
    • Petitioners sought to nullify extrajudicial settlement and the title in Jesus’s name, and pray for specific performance of sale.
  • Trial and Appeals
    • RTC ruled sale null and void for lack of wife’s consent under conjugal property regime.
    • CA affirmed RTC, reasoning that the property was subject to absolute community regime, but since Perla did not consent, sale was void.
    • CA applied Article 92 exclusion but found Perla’s recognition of co-ownership negated its application.
    • Petitioners filed Motion for Reconsideration, denied by CA.
    • Petitioners filed Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA misapplied Article 92 of the Family Code regarding exclusion of property acquired before the second marriage by a spouse with legitimate descendants from the first marriage, leading to erroneous declaration that the sale was void.
  • Whether the CA erred in disregarding the clear provisions of Articles 92 and 103 in relation to Article 145 of the Family Code authorizing the surviving spouse to dispose of his share in the conjugal property from the first marriage without consent of the second spouse.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.