Case Digest (G.R. No. 33758)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 33758)
Facts:
Modesto Montederamos v. Catalina Ynonoy et al., G.R. No. 33758, January 15, 1932, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villa-Real, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff-appellee was Modesto Montederamos; the defendants-appellants were Catalina Ynonoy et al., successors-in-interest of Anastacio Amil, the original vendee. Montederamos sued to annul a deed of sale dated October 10, 1925, by which his wife, Timotea Vendiola, purportedly sold a parcel of her paraphernal land (containing seventy-eight coconut trees, part of which comprised eighteen two-year-old trees) to Amil for P400. The Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros declared the deed null and void and ordered restoration of the land to Montederamos; the defendants appealed.
At trial the preponderance of the evidence showed that Modesto and Timotea went to Amil’s house to offer the parcel; Amil accepted, his son fetched and counted the money in Modesto’s presence, and Modesto wrapped it in a handkerchief. Timotea then proposed going to Dumaguete to have the deed prepared; Modesto remained at home to attend to the children. In Dumaguete, one Geronimo Marino prepared the deed and the notary, Aniceto B. Dorado, ratified it despite Modesto’s absence after Timotea told the notary that her husband had stayed home; the notary had earlier demanded Modesto’s presence to sign. Modesto later allegedly used the P400 in a business; he also testified that in 1924 he had mortgaged his wife’s paraphernal property to Bruno Alabastro for P918 (the mortgage deed was formally executed in December 1925), and Alabastro later filed a forcible entry and detainer case against Amil asserting a preferential right under that mortgage.
The defendants contended the sale was made with Modesto’s knowledge and consent. Timotea testified, in Modesto’s presence in another proceeding, that the sale was made with his knowledge and consent and that they had invested the P400 together (Exhibit 1). The trial court nonetheless found for Montederamos and annulled the sale. On appeal the defendants assigned errors alleging, among other points, that the trial court erred in holding that the husband’s consent must be written and in a public instrument, and that the trial court erred in not finding that Modesto gave express consent to the sale.
The case reached the Supreme Court by appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The Supreme Court considered whether Article 1387 of the Civil Code requires written, public-instrument consent and whether, on the facts, Modesto had consented.
Issues:
- Does Article 1387 of the Civil Code require the husband’s consent to his wife’s alienation of paraphernal property to be given in writing and in a public instrument?
- On the facts of this case, did Modesto Montederamos give consent (express or tacit) to his wife’s sale of the paraphernal land to Anastacio Amil, thereby validating the deed?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)