Title
Supreme Court
Matthews vs. Taylor
Case
G.R. No. 164584
Decision Date
Jun 22, 2009
A British national contested a lease agreement over a Boracay property owned by his Filipino wife, claiming conjugal rights. The Supreme Court ruled the property was exclusively hers, upholding the lease and reinforcing the constitutional ban on alien land ownership.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164584)

Key Dates

• June 30, 1988 – Marriage of Benjamin and Joselyn Taylor.
• June 9, 1989 – Joselyn’s acquisition of the Boracay property.
• June 8, 1992 – Joselyn grants Benjamin a Special Power of Attorney over the property.
• July 20, 1992 – Lease agreement executed between Joselyn and Matthews.
• June 30, 1997 – RTC decision declaring the lease null.
• December 19, 2003 & July 14, 2004 – CA decision and resolution affirming RTC.
• June 22, 2009 – Supreme Court decision reversing CA.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XII, Section 7 (alien land-ownership prohibition).
• Civil Code and Family Code provisions on spousal consent and property regimes.

Procedural History

Benjamin sued for nullity of lease and damages, asserting that (a) he financed the property’s acquisition and improvement, and (b) as spouse, Joselyn required his consent to lease community property. Joselyn and Matthews failed to answer, prompting a default judgment in favor of Benjamin (March 14, 1994). The CA set aside that judgment, allowed Matthews to answer, and remanded for trial. The RTC again nullified the lease and awarded damages; the CA affirmed. Matthews sought certiorari relief before the Supreme Court.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC held that the Boracay land formed part of the couple’s community property, funded by Benjamin; thus, Joselyn needed his consent to bind the estate. It struck Benjamin’s signature as witness because it did not appear on every page of the lease. The lease was declared null and void; Joselyn and Matthews were jointly liable for damages and attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA affirmed the RTC on two grounds:

  1. Marital consent under Article 96 of the Family Code (absolute community) was absent.
  2. Benjamin’s signature “as witness” did not equate to “with my consent.”
    It found the SPA granted Benjamin no need to participate in the lease’s execution, reinforcing invalidity.

Issues on Certiorari

Matthews urged that:

  1. Spousal consent was unnecessary or, if required, Benjamin gave consent by witnessing the lease (citing Spouses Pelayo v. Melki Perez).
  2. The lot was Joselyn’s exclusive property (citing Cheesman v. IAC).
  3. The Family Code’s absolute community regime did not apply to their 1988 marriage; conjugal partnership of gains was the governing regime.
  4. Notarial documents enjoy a presumption of regularity.
  5. The CA overlooked petitioner’s uncontested counterclaim.

Supreme Court’s Constitutional Analysis

Under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, aliens are absolutely prohibited from acquiring private or public lands, save for hereditary succession or constitutionally recognized exceptions. This measure conserves the national patrimony and precludes indirect or clandestine acquisition by foreign nationals.

Precedent on Alien Land Ownership

• Krivenko v. Register of Deeds (1947) – Constitutional ban prevents alien acquisition of private agricultural lands.
• Muller v. Muller (2006) – Alien husband’s funding does not confer ownership or reimbursement rights.
• Frenzel v. Catito (2003) – Alien cannot recover properties titled under a Filipina’s name.
• Cheesman v. IAC (1991) – Alien

...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.