Case Summary (G.R. No. 155043)
Petitioner's Due Process Claim
Petitioner argued lack of personal service of appellate pleadings and absence of appellee’s brief. The Supreme Court held that due process requires only notice and opportunity to be heard; petitioner’s absence stemmed from his own counsel’s negligence, not court fault. He is bound by his counsel’s omissions.
Nature and Perfection of the RMOA
The RMOA is a unilateral offer or option, not a contract of sale:
- It lacks respondent’s signature and consent obligation.
- It grants a privilege to purchase within 30 days but imposes no binding duty on the offeree.
- It is unsupported by consideration distinct from the price.
- Respondent never made a valid legal-tender payment (a check is not legal tender), thus there was no perfected sale nor valid tender required for specific performance.
Contract to Sell by Esther
Esther’s separate Contract to Sell her conjugal share cannot cure defects in Arturo’s RMOA:
- A void contract (due to lack of consideration, signature, and mutual consent) cannot be ratified.
- The terms of both documents diverge, and each spouse’s consent must appear in the same instrument for valid disposition of conjugal property.
Conjugal Partnership Regime
Under Article 166 of the Civil Code (as applied in 1989) and affirmed by the Family Code:
- The land is conjugal property; husband is sole administrator but cannot alienate without wife’s consent.
- Each spouse’s interest is inchoate until liquidation of the partnership; Nemo dat quod non habet.
- Alienation of conjugal real property without joint written consent is void ab initio, absent statutory exceptions.
Supreme Court Ruling
T
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 155043)
Procedural History
- Petition for review filed under G.R. No. 155043 seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 48355 (Dr. Galicano S. Macatangay, Jr. v. Arturo R. Abalos and Esther Palisoc-Abalos), promulgated March 14, 2002.
- The trial court dismissed respondent’s complaint for specific performance; the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered petitioners to execute a deed of sale.
- Petitioner alleges due process violations, factual misappreciation by the appellate court, and misclassification of contract.
Facts
- Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos own a 327-sq.m. parcel at Azucena St., Makati (TCT No. 145316).
- June 2, 1988: Esther grants Arturo a Special Power of Attorney (SPA).
- October 17, 1989: Arturo executes a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA) with respondent:
• Obligation to sell only within 30 days, price ₱1,300,000, ₱5,000 earnest paid;
• Full payment due upon turnover of possession. - October 25, 1989: Esther grants SPA to her sister to effect transfer to respondent.
- November 14 & 16, 1989: Respondent annotates adverse claim; demands payment and possession.
- November 16, 1989: Esther (through attorney-in-fact) executes a Contract to Sell her conjugal interest for ₱650,000 (net of earnest), promises deed upon full payment of ₱1,290,000.
- December 7, 1989: Respondent sets aside a check of ₱1,290,000; reiterates demand.
- Petitioners fail to deliver; another adverse claim noted.
- January 12, 1990: Respondent files complaint for specific performance with damages in RTC Makati.
Trial Court’s Findings
- Declared the SPA by Esther to Arturo void for forgery; Arturo lacked authority to bind conjugal property.
- Dishonored earnest-money check and absence of proof that the replacement check covered earnest money.
- Dismissed responde