MARCIANA VILLOCINO AND PROTASIO RODRIGUEZ, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. PEDRO DOYON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. CLETO P. EVANGELISTA, INTERVENOR-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N

This case was filed by the appellees to recover from the appellants the
possession and ownership of two parcels of land, one situated in Kananga, Leyte,
and another one in Ormoc City. After hearing, the Court of First Instance of
Leyte rendered judgment declaring appellees the owners of the land. From that
judgment appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals but the latter Court
certified the case to us as the facts are not in dispute and the issues raised
are question of law.

The two lots in question, Lot No. 10375 and Lot No. 7924 of the Ormoc
Cadastre, were conjugal properties of appellee Marciana Villocino and Bartolome
Rodriguez, now deceased. Without the knowledge of his wife, Rodriguez sold on
August 7, 1951 one half of Lot No. 10375 and on December 20, 1951 the whole of
Lot No. 7924 to the appellant Pedro Doyon. He sold two other lots to Emilia
Conui Vda. de Aviles, also without the knowledge of his wife. Rodriguez made the
sales even as his wife and son, the other appellee herein, Protasio Rodriguez,
were seeking in Civil Case No. 549 of the Leyte Court of First Instance a change
of administration of the conjugal partnership.

In its decision in Civil Case No. 549, the court found that the husband, who
was living with a concubine, had sold four parcels of land without the knowledge
and consent of his wife and, for this reason, placed all properties of the
conjugal partnership under the latter>s administration. Later, these lots
were to be included in the order of execution but, on motion of appellant Doyon
and Emilia Conui Vda. de Aviles, the other vendee, the court excluded the lots
from execution. On September 6, 1957, appellant Doyon sold Lot No. 7924 to the
other appellant, Atty. Cleto P. Evangelista, who represented him in Civil Case
No. 549.

On June 30, 1959, appellees filed this case against appellant Doyon to
recover the possession and ownership of the lots in question. Appellant
Evangelista intervened, claiming ownership of Lot No. 7924. In declaring
appellees owners of the land, the court said:

“It is to be noted that when the late Bartolome Rodriguez sold the two
parcels of land, the consent of the wife, Marciana Villocino, had not been
secured so that pursuant to Article 166 of the new Civil Code, the sale of the
defendant (Doyon) is null and void^[*];
consequently the sale by the defendant to the intervenor ^Evangelista^ has no
force and effect.”

Appellants contend that since the lots in this case were acquired by appellee
Villocino and her late husband before the effectivity of the new Civil Code, the
sales in this case should be governed by the provisions of the Spanish Civil
Code. It is then urged that, under article 1413 of the latter Code, the husband
has the power to alienate property of the conjugal partnership even without the
consent of his wife.

Indeed, article 166 of the new Civil Code provides that—

“Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a
spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium, the
husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal
partnership without the wife’s consent. If she refuses unreasonably to give her
consent, the court may compel her to grant the same.

“This article shall not apply to property acquired by the conjugal
partnership before the effective date of this Code.”

while the Spanish Civil Code provides:

“ART. 1413. In addition to his powers as manager the husband may for valuable
consideration alienate and encumber the property of the conjugal partnership
without the consent of the wife.

“Nevertheless, no alienation or agreement which the husband may make with
respect to such property in contravention of this code or in fraud of the wife
shall prejudice her or her heirs.”

But while we agree with appellants that the consent of the wife (appellee
Villocino) was not necessary for the validity of her husband’s sale because the
lots sold had been acquired by the couple before August 30, 1950 when the new
Code took effect (Tabunan v. Marigmen, 101 Phil. 288 [1957], it is
nevertheless true that even under the former law the husband’s power to alienate
properties of the conjugal partnership is not without limitation. (Simbre
v. Agustin, 55 O.G. 5016 [1958]; Liguez v. Court of Appeals, 54
O.G. 4261 [1957]. See also Harden v. Peña, 87 Phil. 609 [1950] For one
thing, such power, as we have seen, cannot be exercised to the prejudice of the
wife or her heirs. What is more, alienations made without the knowledge of the
wife are presumed to be in fraud of her. (Simbre v. Agustin,
supra; Tabunan v. Marigmen, supra) For, as conjugal
properties belong equally to husband and wife, any alienation made by the
husband without the consent of his wife prejudices her in so far as it includes
a part or the whole of the wife’s half and is, to that extent, invalid. (Baello
v. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 213 [1930])

Indeed, in Civil Case No. 549 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, the
administration of the conjugal partnership was transferred to appellee Villocino
precisely because the court found that the late Bartolome Rodriguez had
fraudulently disposed of conjugal properties (among which were the lots in
question) without the knowledge and consent of his wife. Thus, in the decision
in that case, the court said:

“Es evidente que el marido Bartolome Rodriguez ha abusado de los poderes que
tenia como administrador de los bienes de la sociedad de gananciales al disponer
de cuatro parcelas gananciales sin conocimiento ni consentimiento de mujer y
gastar para su propio beneficio exclusivamente de las cantidades recibidas como
precio de venta. De permitir que Bartolome Rodriguez continua siendo
administrador, podria continuar disponiendo de todas las propiedades de la
socieded conyugal en perjuicio de su esposa.”

This excerpt from the decision in Civil Case No. 549 should likewise answer
appellants’ contention that the present case was filed as an action for recovery
of possession and ownership, not for the annulment of sale, and that the issue
of fraud was never put in issue by the pleadings. The parties to this case
entered into a stipulation of facts in which they asked the trial court to
consider among other things, the decision in Civil Case No. 549. The above
quotation from the decision in that case clearly shows that fraud against the
wife was in issue. Moreover, as this Court once said, “It may be that the
recovery of title and possession of the lot was the ultimate objective of
plaintiffs, but to attain that goal, they must need first travel over the road
of relief on the ground of fraud.” (Rone v. Claro, 91 Phil. 250, 253
[1952]) We therefore hold that the sale of Lots No. 10375 (1/2) and 7924 to
appellant Doyon and the subsequent transfer of Lot No. 7924 by appellant Doyon
to appellant Evangelista are invalid to the extent that the rights of appellee
Villocino to one half are affected. Since any prejudice to the wife can be
determined only after the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the sales in
question should be deemed subject to such contingency which should be noted in
the corresponding certificate of title, (Baello v. Villanueva,
supra; Tabunan v. Marigmen, supra) The Court is aware that
only one half of Lot No, 10375 had been sold and that in all probability the
wife’8 share has not been affected but considering that the other lot (Lot No.
7924) is unregistered, it is believed that the annotation of the condition on
the certificate of title covering Lot No. 10375 is necessary to compensate for
the lack of registration of the other lot.

WHEREFORE, with the modification that the invalidity of the sales to
appellants shall be deemed subject to the outcome of the liquidation of the
oonjugal partnership and that, in the meantime, this condition should be noted
in the certificate of title covering Lot No. 10375, the decision appealed from
is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and
Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.