Case Summary (G.R. No. 57499)
Procedural History
• Trial Court Decision (October 6, 1980): Declared Daguines owner of the land and one-half of the house.
• Reconsideration (November 27, 1980): Amended decision declaring Daguines owner of the land and ten coconut trees, but void as to the conjugal house, three coconut trees, and other crops.
• Supreme Court Review: Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issues Presented
- Does construction of a conjugal house on one spouse’s proprietary land convert the land into conjugal property?
- Was the sale of the lot with the house and improvements valid under the circumstances?
Applicable Law
• Civil Code (1950):
– Art. 158(2): “Buildings constructed at the expense of the partnership during the marriage on land belonging to one spouse also pertain to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the same.”
– Art. 166: Spousal consent required for disposal of conjugal property.
– Art. 1409 & 1352: Contracts contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or policy are void.
– Art. 1490: Prohibition on sale of property between spouses during marriage.
– Art. 133 & 1337: Prohibition on donations between spouses; protection against undue influence.
Conversion of Land and Buildings into Conjugal Property
The Court interpreted Art. 158(2) to mean that both the building and the land become conjugal property from the time of construction, subject to an obligation by the conjugal partnership to reimburse the land’s owner–spouse for its value at liquidation. Citing Manresa’s commentary on the Spanish Civil Code and Justice Reyes in Padilla v. Paterno (3 SCRA 678), the acquisition by the partnership is retroactive to the date the building was erected. Accordingly, Fernando’s lot and the house were conjugal assets, and Mercedes, as co-owner, had a right to consent before any alienation.
Invalidity of the Sale to Daguines
Because Mercedes did not consent, the sale violated Art. 166. Moreover, the transaction was tainted by public policy and morality: Fernando, after abandoning his family for his concubine, sought to transfer conjugal a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 57499)
Facts of the Case
- Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas and Fernando Canullas were validly married on December 19, 1962, and had five children.
- The family resided in a small house on an 891-square-meter residential parcel in Bacabac, Bugallon, Pangasinan.
- Fernando inherited the land in 1965 upon his father’s death.
- In 1978, Fernando abandoned his wife and children and cohabited with Corazon Daguines, with whom he was later convicted of concubinage (final in October 1981).
- On April 15, 1980, Fernando sold the parcel and house to Daguines for ₱2,000.00, describing the house as “also inherited by me from my deceased parents.”
- Daguines filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages on June 19, 1980, alleging she could not take possession.
- Mercedes resisted, asserting that the house, coconut trees, and other improvements were conjugal property built or planted with conjugal funds and without her consent the sale was void.
Procedural History
- The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch I, rendered its original decision on October 6, 1980, declaring Daguines owner of the land and one-half of the house.
- On Mercedes’s motion for reconsideration, the same court, by resolution dated November 27, 1980, amended the dispositive to:
- (1) Declare Daguines lawful owner of the land and ten coconut trees; and
- (2) Declare null and void the sale of the conjugal house (with three coconut trees and other crops) for lack of spousal consent.
- Mercedes petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari to review both the October 6 decision and the November 27 resolution.
Issues Presented
- Whether the