FELICIDAD TOLENTINO, PETITIONER, VS. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court
of Appeals, affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Manila (in Civil Case No. 41124).

The case commenced with the filing of a complaint by Eulogia
Bigornia Cardenas against her husband Leoncio Cardenas and Florencia
Riñen, with whom the latter was allegedly cohabiting, seeking recovery
of the sum of P3,000.00 which she incurred and spent to maintain
herself since she left the conjugal dwelling on July 1, 1951. Plaintiff
also demanded for an accounting of the fruits of the conjugal
partnership and the delivery of her alleged share thereof, and for the
transfer of the administration of the conjugal properties to her. It
was claimed that she and defendant husband acquired a lot at L.
Nadurata street, Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal, whereon they constructed
a house, being rented for P100.00 a month, and which rental was being
received by the other defendant Felicidad Tolentino,
successor-in-interest of defendant Leoncio Cardenas.

Defendants Cardenas and Rinen denied the material averments
of the complaint. Defendant Felicidad Tolentino, on the other
hand, who claims to be the owner of a certain Lot No. 2-A of
Psd 43206, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38550,
appearing in her name, contended that she acquired the house
referred to in the complaint, by purchase, from Leoncio Cardenas
who represented himself to be the sole and lawful owner thereof.

After due hearing, the court rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which reads:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS,
judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant Leoncio Cardenas to
pay to the plaintiff herein the sum of P3,000.00 as actual damages in
the first cause of action; order the defendant Leoncio Cardenas to
deliver to the plaintiff the administration of the conjugal property
and to account for the fruits of the conjugal partnership from July 1,
1951 until the time that he surrenders the administration thereof to
the herein plaintiff; and places the administration of the conjugal
property in the hands of the herein plaintiff, defendant Leoncio
Cardenas having abused his power of administration; declares
the sale, if any, of the house and lot in question
to Felicidad Tolentino as null and void which was
done in violation of Article 166 of the above-cited
Code; to pay attorney’s fees to the lawyer of the
plaintiff in the amount of P200.00, plus costs.” (Italics supplied.)

All three defendants gave notice of appeal to the Court
of Appeals, but only defendant Felicidad Tolentino filed brief
as appellant specifically assailing the correctness of the
decision of the trial court insofar as it declared the sale
of the conjugal house and the lot, if any, null and void.
The appellate court in affirming the decision of the court

a quo, said:

“With respect to the sale, if any, of the lot
claimed by the plaintiff-appellee, appellant states,
‘The evidence in this regard does not show that there

was a sale between defendant Leoncio Cardenas and
appellant Felicidad Tolentino over the lot in question, and for this reason, there is nothing to be
annulled.’ The statement is correct; in fact, the
trial judge entertained serious doubt that the land
covered by the tax declarations in the name of Leon-
cio Cardenas, Exhibits A and H described therein as
Lot 2, Block 80, was really bought by appellant from
said Leoncio Cardenas by the mere production of the
photostatic copy of TCT No. 38550, Exhibit 2, which
covered Lot 2-A of Psd 43206, without the corresponding deed of sale, and which was issued to appellant
on April 11, 1954, whereas Exhibit 1 is a letter dated
November 2, 1954, addressed to Mr. L. Cardenas, 154
7th Avenue, Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal, by the manager of the Philippine Realty Corporation, informing,
You have been occupying Lot No. 2, Block No. 80, of
our Grace Park Subdivision, which has been for sale
for a long time now’, and giving formal notice ‘to
vacate the said lot within ten (10) days from date
of this letter unless you arrange with us the purchase thereof within said period.’

“WHEREFORE, finding the decision appealed from
to be justified by the evidence and the law, we
hereby affirm the same, with costs against the
appellant.”

In this petition, petitioner-defendant Tolentino raises
the question of whether a realty may be lost by the mere fact
that another person declared the same to be his for taxation
purposes. In short, petitioner was under the impression that
both decisions of the court a quo and the Court of Appeals
passed upon the validity of the certificate of title issued
in her name covering a certain Lot 2-A of Psd-43206 or that
the ownership thereof was adjudicated in favor of the conjugal
partnership of the Cardenas spouses.

It may be pointed out, however, that a reading of the
pertinent portions of the decisions, quoted above,will show
that what was declared null and void was “the sale, if any”
of the house and lot allegedly belonging to the conjugal partnership. There was no actual finding that there was a sale
of the lot claimed by petitioner Tolentino. Although the
decision of the trial court made mention of a certain lot

Caloocan, Rizal, for which the spouses Cardenas gave a down
payment of P100.00 to a certain Mr. G. Leonardo and which was
declared for taxation purposes in the name of defendant husband,
there was no conclusion that said lot was ultimately acquired
by the Cardenas couple. The only thing that was established,
and the parties agree to this, was that, the house which was
constructed in April, 1948 was sold by defendant husband and
purchased by defendant Tolentino for the sum of P500.00 in
November, 1954, without the consent of the plaintiff wife.
Under the terms of both decisions and since there was such
sale of the house, the transaction is null and void for lack
of the necessary marital consent as provided in Article 166 of
the new Civil Code.

On the other hand, considering that, admittedly, no sale
of any lot belonging to the conjugal partnership took place or
was entered into by defendant husband and herein petitioner,
and as there was no finding in the decisions that the lot
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38550 appearing
in the name of Felicidad Tolentino ever belonged to the said
conjugal partnership, there is actually no controversy as to
that lot raised in the instant proceeding. Since there had
been no sale of any lot made by the husband, there could have
been no such transaction that has been affected by the decisions.

Wherefore, finding no error in the decision under review,
the same is hereby affirmed and herein petition is dismissed.
With costs against the petitioner.So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.