Bravo-Guerrero vs Bravo [G.R. No. 152658] Case Digest

 

Bravo-Guerrero vs Bravo

G.R. No. 152658

G-one Paisones

 

Subtopic:

Inadequacy of Price Does Not Affect Ordinary Sale

 

Facts:

Spouses Mauricio Bravo and Simona Andaya-Bravo owned two parcels of land located along Evangelista Street, Makati City, Metro Manila. Mauricio and Simona had three children - Roland, Cesar and Lily, all surnamed Bravo. Cesar died without issue. Lily Bravo married David Diaz, and had a son, David B. Diaz, Jr. Roland had six children, namely, Lily Elizabeth Bravo-Guerrero ("Elizabeth"), Edward Bravo ("Edward"), Roland Bravo, Jr. ("Roland Jr."), Senia Bravo, Benjamin Mauricio Bravo, and their half-sister, Ofelia Bravo ("Ofelia").

Simona executed a General Power of Attorney  appointing Mauricio as her attorney-in-fact. In the GPA, Simona authorized Mauricio to "mortgage or otherwise hypothecate, sell, assign and dispose of any and all of my property, real, personal or mixed, of any kind whatsoever and wheresoever situated, or any interest therein. Mauricio subsequently mortgaged the Properties to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for P10,000 and P5,000, respectively. Mauricio executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Real Estate Mortgage ("Deed of Sale") conveying the Properties to "Roland A. Bravo, Ofelia A. Bravo and Elizabeth Bravo" ("vendees"). The sale was conditioned on the payment of P1,000 and on the assumption by the vendees of the PNB and DBP mortgages over the Properties.

However, the Deed of Sale was not annotated on TCT Nos. 58999 and 59000. Neither was it presented to PNB and DBP. The mortage loans and the receipts for loan payments issued by PNB and DBP continued to be in Mauricio's name even after his death on 20 November 1973. Simona died in 1977.

Edward, represented by his wife, Fatima Bravo, filed an action for the judicial partition of the Properties. Edward claimed that he and the other grandchildren of Mauricio and Simona are co-owners of the Properties by succession. Despite this, petitioners refused to share with him the possession and rental income of the Properties. Edward later amended his complaint to include a prayer to annul the Deed of Sale, which he claimed was merely simulated to prejudice the other heirs.

The trial court upheld Mauricio's sale of the Properties to the vendees. CA reversed the RTC.

 

Issue:

Whether or not CA correct in not upholding the validity of the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

Art. 166. 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 partnerships before the effective date of this Code.

Article 166 expressly applies only to properties acquired by the conjugal partnership after the effectivity of the Civil Code of the Philippines ("Civil Code"). The Civil Code came into force on 30 August 1950.Although there is no dispute that the Properties were conjugal properties of Mauricio and Simona, the records do not show, and the parties did not stipulate, when the Properties were acquired.[17] Under Article 1413 of the old Spanish Civil Code, the husband could alienate conjugal partnership property for valuable consideration without the wife's consent. Even under the present Civil Code, however, the Deed of Sale is not void. It is well-settled that contracts alienating conjugal real property without the wife's consent are merely voidable under the Civil Code - that is, binding on the parties unless annulled by a competent court - and not void ab initio.

Article 166 must be read in conjunction with Article 173 of the Civil Code ("Article 173"). The latter prescribes certain conditions before a sale of conjugal property can be annulled for lack of the wife's consent, as follows:

Art. 173. The wife may, during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent, when such consent is required, or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband. (Emphasis supplied)

Under the Civil Code, only the wife can ask to annul a contract that disposes of conjugal real property without her consent. The wife must file the action for annulment during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction. Article 173 is explicit on the remedies available if the wife fails to exercise this right within the specified period. In such case, the wife or her heirs can only demand the value of the property provided they prove that the husband fraudulently alienated the property. Fraud is never presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

Respondents' action to annul the Deed of Sale based on Article 166 must fail for having been filed out of time. The marriage of Mauricio and Simona was dissolved when Mauricio died in 1973. More than ten years have passed since the execution of the Deed of Sale.

Further, respondents, who are Simona's heirs, are not the parties who can invoke Article 166. Article 173 reserves that remedy to the wife alone. Only Simona had the right to have the sale of the Properties annulled on the ground that Mauricio sold the Properties without her consent.

Simona, however, did not assail the Deed of Sale during her marriage or even after Mauricio's death. The records are bereft of any indication that Simona questioned the sale of the Properties at any time. Simona did not even attempt to take possession of or reside on the Properties after Mauricio's death. David Jr., who was raised by Simona, testified that he and Simona continued to live in Pasay City after Mauricio's death, while her children and other grandchildren resided on the Properties.