The Supreme Court ruled that the sale of conjugal property by a husband without his wife’s consent is void, reinforcing the principle that both spouses must agree to such transactions. This decision safeguards the rights of married individuals by ensuring that neither spouse can unilaterally dispose of assets acquired during the marriage. The ruling emphasizes the importance of spousal consent in property dealings, preventing potential dispossession and protecting the family’s economic stability.

The Forged Signature and a Disputed Property: Whose Consent Really Matters?

This case revolves around a property in Cavite acquired during the marriage of Jose and Melinda Malabanan. After Jose’s death, Melinda discovered a series of transactions that led to the property being registered under the names of Spouses Dominador III and Guia Montano. Crucially, these transactions stemmed from a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly signed by both Jose and Melinda, authorizing Jose’s father, Francisco Malabanan, Jr., to sell the property. Melinda claimed her signature on the SPA was forged, and she had never consented to the sale. This discrepancy raised a critical question: Can conjugal property be validly sold based on a forged SPA, effectively depriving one spouse of their rights?

The heart of the matter lies in the nature of the property as conjugal. Under Article 160 of the Civil Code, which governs property relations before the Family Code, “all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.” The burden of proof rests on those claiming the property is not conjugal. In this case, respondents argued that the property was Jose’s exclusive property, either as an advance on his inheritance or through other arrangements. The Court, however, found their evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of conjugality. The fact that the Transfer Certificate of Title was issued to “Jose, married to Melinda” strongly suggested conjugal ownership.

The Court emphasized the importance of a certificate of title as evidence of ownership, citing Halili v. Court of Industrial Relations:

[T]he best proof of ownership of a piece of land is the Certificate of Title.

. . . .

A certificate of title accumulates in one document a precise and correct statement of the exact status of the fee held by its owner. The certificate, in the absence of fraud, is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of its owner. The title once registered, with very few exceptions, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged, or diminished, except in some direct proceeding permitted by law. Otherwise, all security in registered titles would be lost.

Given the conjugal nature of the property, Articles 165 and 166 of the Civil Code become crucial. Article 165 designates the husband as the administrator of the conjugal partnership. However, Article 166 imposes a significant limitation: “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.”

This provision clearly establishes the requirement of spousal consent for the sale of conjugal real property. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the sale of conjugal property without the wife’s consent is void, as emphasized in Bucoy v. Paulino:

As the statute now stands, the right of the wife is directed at “the annulment of any contract,” referring to real property of the conjugal partnership entered into by the husband “without her consent.”

The plain meaning attached to the plain language of the law is that the contract, in its entirety, executed by the husband without the wife’s consent, may be annulled by the wife. Had Congress intended to limit such annulment in so far as the contract shall “prejudice” the wife, such limitation should have been spelled out in the statute. It is not the legitimate concern of this Court to recast the law. As Mr. Justice Jose B. L. Reyes of this Court and Judge Ricardo C. Puno of the Court of First Instance correctly stated, “[t]he rule (in the first sentence of Article 173) revokes Baello vs. Villanueva, . . . and Coque vs. Navas Sioca, . . .” in which cases annulment was held to refer only to the extent of the one-half interest of the wife. . . .

The necessity to strike down the contract . . . as a whole, not merely as to the share of the wife, is not without its basis in the common-sense rule. To be underscored here is that upon the provisions of Articles 161, 162 and 163 of the Civil Code, the conjugal partnership is liable for many obligations while the conjugal partnership exists. Not only that. The conjugal property is even subject to the payment of debts contracted by either spouse before the marriage, as those for the payment of fines and indemnities imposed upon them after the responsibilities in Article 161 have been covered (Article 163, par. 3), if it turns out that the spouse who is bound thereby, “should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient.” These are considerations that go beyond the mere equitable share of the wife in the property. These are reasons enough for the husband to be stopped from disposing of the conjugal property without the consent of the wife. Even more fundamental is the fact that the nullity is decreed by the Code not on the basis of prejudice but lack of consent of an indispensable party to the contract under Article 166.

The validity of the SPA was central to the case. Melinda argued, and the trial court agreed, that her signature was forged. An expert witness from the National Bureau of Investigation confirmed the forgery. Respondent Francisco’s claim that Jose handed him the SPA with Melinda’s signature already affixed was deemed insufficient, especially since he knew Melinda was working abroad at the time. This raised serious doubts about the SPA’s authenticity and Francisco’s role in the transactions.

The Court highlighted the importance of personal appearance before a notary public, as emphasized in Spouses Domingo v. Reed, to guard against illegal acts and ensure the genuineness of signatures. Given the uncontroverted evidence of forgery, the Supreme Court declared the SPA void. This invalidity had a ripple effect, rendering all subsequent transactions based on the SPA also void.

The Court further addressed the good faith of the Montano Spouses, the ultimate buyers of the property. While buyers relying on a clean certificate of title are generally considered innocent purchasers for value, this rule does not apply when the buyer has knowledge of facts that should prompt further inquiry. The Court found that the Montano Spouses were not buyers in good faith because Melinda was in possession of the property, not the seller, Ramon Malabanan. This should have alerted Dominador Montano, a seasoned businessman living in the same neighborhood, to investigate further before purchasing the property. His failure to do so negated his claim of good faith.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the sale of conjugal property was valid when the wife’s consent was obtained through a forged Special Power of Attorney (SPA). The court examined whether the husband could unilaterally dispose of the property without the genuine consent of his wife.
What is conjugal property?	Conjugal property refers to assets acquired by a husband and wife during their marriage through their work, industry, or from the fruits of their separate properties. It is jointly owned by both spouses and is subject to specific rules regarding its administration and disposition.
What does Article 166 of the Civil Code say about selling conjugal property?	Article 166 states that the husband cannot sell or encumber real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent, unless the wife is incapacitated. This article emphasizes the need for mutual consent in decisions affecting conjugal assets.
What happens if conjugal property is sold without the wife’s consent?	If conjugal property is sold without the wife’s consent, the sale is considered void. The wife has the right to annul the contract, protecting her ownership rights and preventing unauthorized disposition of shared assets.
What is a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)?	A Special Power of Attorney is a legal document authorizing one person (the attorney-in-fact) to act on behalf of another (the principal) in specific matters. It must be executed with proper formalities to be valid, including genuine consent from all parties involved.
What is the effect of a forged signature on a Special Power of Attorney?	A forged signature renders the SPA void from the beginning. It signifies a lack of consent, making any transaction based on the forged document invalid and unenforceable.
What does it mean to be a buyer in good faith?	A buyer in good faith is someone who purchases property for a fair price without knowledge of any defects in the seller’s title or any adverse claims on the property. They rely on the certificate of title and are not obligated to investigate further unless suspicious circumstances exist.
Why were the Montano Spouses not considered buyers in good faith?	The Montano Spouses were not considered buyers in good faith because Melinda was in possession of the property, which should have prompted them to inquire further about her rights. Their failure to investigate these circumstances negated their claim of good faith.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Melinda, declaring the sale of the conjugal property void. It reinstated the trial court’s decision, which nullified all transactions stemming from the forged SPA and ordered the property returned to Melinda’s name.

This case underscores the importance of protecting spousal rights in property transactions. It serves as a reminder that both husband and wife must genuinely consent to the sale of conjugal assets. This decision has far-reaching implications for property law, emphasizing the need for due diligence and genuine consent in all real estate transactions involving married couples.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MELINDA M. MALABANAN v. FRANCISCO MALABANAN, JR., ET AL., G.R. No. 187225, March 06, 2019