VILLARANDA vs VILLARANDA DOCTRINE: Under the Civil Code 166 and 173, the husband cant alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. This is voidable, not void. An action to annul such alienation may be instituted by the wife during the marriage and within 10 years from the transaction. FACTS: Petitioner Vicente and respondent Honorio Villaranda are brothers who inherited land from their parents. In 1976, they executed a Deed of Exchange, wherein Vicente agreed to convey his portion to Honorio in exchange for property in Macasandig. Honorio and his wife, Ana, brought an action for specific performance to compel Vicente to fulfill his obligations under the Deed. Vicente never identified or delineated his undivided portion of the property. Vicente claims the Deed was revoked by both parties. RTC ruled in favor of Honorio and Ana. On appeal, the CA held that the Civil Code was applicable since the Deed was entered into in 1976. The absence of the wife’s signature made it voidable, not void. Also, Ana was aware of the Deed but never brought action for its annulment within 10years from its execution. The prescriptive period for the cause of action ran not from the execution of the Deed but from when Vicente refused to transfer his title to Honorio, some 2 months before the filing of the case. CA again ruled in favor of Honorio and Ana. ISSUES: WON the Deed is valid without the signature of Ana YES RATIO: The Deed was entered into on 1976, before the Family Code. The Civil Code applies. The

Villaranda vs Villaranda

Download DOC Report

Upload
cocodelrosario
View
142
Download
2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Citation preview

VILLARANDA vs VILLARANDA

DOCTRINE: Under the Civil Code 166 and 173, the husband cant alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. This is voidable, not void. An action to annul such alienation may be instituted by the wife during the marriage and within 10 years from the transaction.

FACTS:Petitioner Vicente and respondent Honorio Villaranda are brothers who inherited land from their parents. In 1976, they executed a Deed of Exchange, wherein Vicente agreed to convey his portion to Honorio in exchange for property in Macasandig.

Honorio and his wife, Ana, brought an action for specific performance to compel Vicente to fulfill his obligations under the Deed. Vicente never identified or delineated his undivided portion of the property. Vicente claims the Deed was revoked by both parties. RTC ruled in favor of Honorio and Ana.

On appeal, the CA held that the Civil Code was applicable since the Deed was entered into in 1976. The absence of the wife’s signature made it voidable, not void. Also, Ana was aware of the Deed but never brought action for its annulment within 10years from its execution. The prescriptive period for the cause of action ran not from the execution of the Deed but from when Vicente refused to transfer his title to Honorio, some 2 months before the filing of the case. CA again ruled in favor of Honorio and Ana.

ISSUES: WON the Deed is valid without the signature of Ana YES

RATIO:The Deed was entered into on 1976, before the Family Code. The Civil Code applies. The Macasandig lot was part of Honorio and Ana’s conjugal property. Under the Civil Code 166 and 173, the husband cant alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. This is voidable, not void. An action to annul such alienation may be instituted by the wife during the marriage and within 10 years from the transaction. The Deed is valid until annulled.

There is no evidence that any action to annul the transfer was brought by Ana within 10 years from the transaction. Her right to bring an action has prescribed. The Deed is still valid and enforceable.