Case Summary (G.R. No. 178902)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioners Manuel O. Fuentes and Leticia L. Fuentes seek to uphold the validity of their purchase. Respondents Conrado G. Roca, Annabelle R. Joson, Rose Marie R. Cristobal, and Pilar Malcampo (collectively, the Rocas) are the heirs of Tarciano and Rosario, challenging the sale’s validity and requesting reconveyance.
Key Dates
• October 11, 1982: Initial sale from Sabina Tarroza to Tarciano T. Roca
• April 29, 1988: Agreement to sell from Tarciano to the spouses
• January 11, 1989: Deed of absolute sale executed in favor of the spouses
• January 28, 1990: Death of Tarciano; Rosario’s death nine months later
• 1997: The Rocas file suit for annulment and reconveyance
• April 21, 2010: En Banc Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
Because the sale occurred after August 3, 1988, the 1987 Constitution’s Family Code governs conjugal property relations. Under Family Code Article 124, a disposition of conjugal real property without written spousal consent is void. The action for declaration of inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe (Civil Code, Art. 1410).
Trial Court Findings
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the Rocas’ petition on grounds of prescription under Civil Code Art. 1391 (four years for annulment due to fraud) and insufficient proof of forgery. It also held that a defective notarization of the affidavit did not invalidate Rosario’s consent or the subsequent sale.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding clear evidence of forgery in Rosario’s signature and defective notarization. It applied Civil Code provisions governing conjugal partnership of gains (pre-Family Code), allowing annulment within ten years of the sale. It declared the sale voidable, granted reconveyance, and awarded reimbursement and interest to the spouses, plus indemnity for improvements.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Forgery
The Supreme Court agreed that the affidavit bore signs of forgery: the heavy, deliberate strokes contrasted sharply with lighter, fluid specimen signatures, and the jurat’s falsified date and venue further discredited the document. Because genuine written spousal consent was absent, the sale was void.
Governing Regime: Family Code
The Court held that the Family Code, not the Civil Code, applies to conjugal property transactions from August 3, 1988 onward. Under Article 124 of the Family Code, the sale of conjugal real property without the other spouse’s written consent is void from the outset. No prescription bars an action to declare a contract void (Civil Code, Art. 1410).
Prescription and Heirs’ Standing
The absence of prescription for declaring a void contract means the Rocas—heirs of Rosario—retain the right to seek annulment and reconveyance, despite Rosario’s death. The property never validly passed to the spouses, so ownership remained with Tarciano and Rosario and then devolved to their heirs under Civil Code Art. 979.
Remedies and Indemnity
While the sale is void, equity requires restitution. The spouses must recover the ₱200,0
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 178902)
Facts of the Case
- Sabina Tarroza originally owned a titled 358-sqm lot in Canelar, Zamboanga City, which she sold to her son, Tarciano T. Roca, on October 11, 1982, under a deed of absolute sale.
- Tarciano did not immediately transfer the registered title to his name. Six years later, in 1988, he offered the lot for sale to Manuel and Leticia Fuentes, who engaged Atty. Romulo D. Plagata to prepare an agreement to sell dated April 29, 1988.
- The agreement to sell provided:
- A six-month effectiveness period;
- P60,000 down payment by the Fuentes spouses for title transfer;
- Tarciano’s obligation to clear structures, evict occupants, and secure his estranged wife Rosario Gabriel Roca’s consent;
- A balance payment of P140,000 or P160,000 depending on demolition of a house;
- Automatic vesting of ownership by the Fuentes spouses if conditions were unmet.
- Atty. Plagata later obtained an affidavit of consent purportedly signed by Rosario in Manila on September 15, 1988, and notarized it in Zamboanga City on January 11, 1989.
- On January 11, 1989, Tarciano executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of the Fuentes spouses, who paid the additional P140,000 and secured a new title in their names. They thereafter constructed a building on the lot.
- Tarciano died on January 28, 1990, followed by Rosario nine months later. In 1997, their children (the Rocas) and Pilar Malcampo (through her son) filed for annulment of sale and reconveyance, alleging forgery of Rosario’s consent and praying for reconveyance upon reimbursement.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City (Civil Case 4707) dismissed the Rocas’ complaint on February 1, 2005, ruling that:
- The four-year prescriptive period under Article 1391 of the Civil Code barred the action;
- The Rocas failed to present clear and convincing proof of forgery;
- The defective notarization of the affidavit did not invalidate Rosario’s consent.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)