Title
Nobleza vs. Nuega
Case
G.R. No. 193038
Decision Date
Mar 11, 2015
Shirley contested the sale of marital property by her husband Rogelio to Josefina without her consent. Courts ruled the sale void, citing Josefina's lack of due diligence and violation of Family Code provisions on community property.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 193038)

Facts:

  • Pre-marital acquisition and contributions
    • In 1988, while engaged, Shirley B. Nuega worked in Israel and sent US$3,500 plus ₱50,000 to Rogelio A. Nuega for the purchase of a residential lot in Marikina. Rogelio was then working abroad as a seaman.
    • On September 13, 1989, Rogelio purchased a 111 sqm house and lot (TCT No. 171963) for ₱102,000 from Rodeanna Realty Corporation. Shirley allegedly settled the equity balance and subsequent amortizations through SSS financing. Title was issued solely in Rogelio’s name.
  • Marriage, marital discord, and property litigation
    • Shirley and Rogelio married on September 1, 1990, and lived on the subject property. In 1991 Shirley returned to Israel; upon return in May 1992 she confirmed Rogelio’s concubinage with Monica Escobar.
    • June 1992: Shirley filed complaints for concubinage and for legal separation with liquidation of property (the latter withdrawn and refiled January 29, 1993). She warned potential buyers—including Josefina Nobleza—against buying the property pending resolution of her cases.
    • Despite warnings, Rogelio sold the property to Nobleza on December 29, 1992 for ₱380,000 via Deed of Absolute Sale, without Shirley’s consent; Nobleza assumed existing mortgage and tax obligations.
  • Lower court and appellate proceedings
    • May 16, 1994: RTC of Pasig granted legal separation and ordered dissolution and liquidation of the absolute community of property, enjoined Rogelio from alienating community assets, and required forfeiture of net profits in Shirley’s favor. The decision became final in 1995.
    • August 27, 1996: Shirley filed for rescission of sale and recovery of property against Nobleza and Rogelio before RTC Marikina (Civil Case No. 96-274-MK).
    • February 14, 2001: RTC Marikina rescinded the sale only insofar as Shirley’s half-share (55.05 sqm), ordered reconveyance or payment of market value, and awarded attorney’s fees to Shirley.
    • May 14, 2010: CA denied Nobleza’s appeal but modified the RTC decision, declaring the entire Deed of Absolute Sale null and void and ordering Nobleza to reconvey the whole property to Shirley and Rogelio, without prejudice to Nobleza’s right to recover from Rogelio.
    • July 21, 2010: CA denied Nobleza’s motion for reconsideration. Nobleza filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioner Nobleza is an innocent purchaser in good faith of the subject property.
  • Whether the CA erred in modifying the RTC decision by declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale void in its entirety.

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.