Title
Supreme Court
Alejo vs. Spouses Cortez
Case
G.R. No. 206114
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2017
A void sale of conjugal property due to lack of written spousal consent; Dolores, a possessor in good faith, entitled to reimbursement for payments and improvements.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206114)

Facts and Antecedent Proceedings

The case involves a parcel of land situated in Pulilan, Bulacan, measuring 255 square meters and forming part of the conjugal property of Jorge and Jacinta Leonardo. In March 1996, Ricardo, Jorge's father, initiated negotiations to sell the property to Dolores Alejo, leading to the execution of a "Kasunduan" on March 29, 1996, signed only by Jacinta and witnessed by Ricardo. Jorge did not consent or sign the agreement. Dolores made the down payment and subsequent payments, after which Jorge denied knowledge of the transaction and later claimed he was retracting consent. Following disputes, Jorge and Jacinta sold the property to spouses Cortez, issuing a new title in their names despite Dolores's occupancy.

The Ruling of the RTC

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acknowledged the absence of Jorge's written consent for the sale but interpreted his subsequent actions—demanding compliance and permitting Dolores to occupy the property—as implied acceptance of the contract. It ruled in favor of Dolores, declaring the "Kasunduan" a perfected contract, recognized her ownership of the property, and canceled the titles held by the spouses Leonardo and Cortez. This ruling included obligations for Dolores to complete payments and for the spouses Leonardo to pay damages to Dolores.

The Ruling of the CA

The Court of Appeals (CA) overturned the RTC's decision, ruling that Jorge's actions constituted only a qualified acceptance of the "Kasunduan," which essentially acted as a counter-offer. It declared the contract void due to the lack of Jorge's consent and determined that Dolores, despite being a possessor in good faith, was entitled to reimbursement for her significant payments and improvements made to the property, with the CA remanding the case for further proceedings to ascertain the indemnity owed to her.

The Issues

Dolores appealed the CA ruling, arguing that the appeals by spouses Leonardo and Cortez should have been dismissed for procedural defects and contending that the "Kasunduan" was binding due to Jorge's implied consent following the dismissal of his annulment case. Furthermore, she claimed that spouses Cortez were not bona fide buyers since they were aware of her possession of the property.

The Ruling of this Court

The Supreme Court confirmed the appellate court’s decision. It upheld the principle that consent from both spouses is mandatory for the sale of conjugal property as dictated by the Family Code, noting that Jorge’s letters clearly repudiated the "Kasunduan." The Court main

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.