Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 357 views

    Guiang vs. CA, GR No. 125172, June 26, 1998

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the sale of conjugal property without the consent of both spouses. The facts of the case are that Gilda Corpuz's husband Judie sold their remaining property to another couple, the Guiangs, without Gilda's consent while she was away. Gilda contested the sale. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was not just voidable but totally void, as Gilda's essential consent was absent, violating the Family Code requirement that both spouses consent to the sale of conjugal property. The "Deed of Transfer of Right" was declared null and void for lack of Gilda's consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Guiang vs. CA, GR No. 125172, June 26, 1998

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    357 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the sale of conjugal property without the consent of both spouses. The facts of the case are that Gilda Corpuz's husband Judie sold their remaining property to another couple, the Guiangs, without Gilda's consent while she was away. Gilda contested the sale. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was not just voidable but totally void, as Gilda's essential consent was absent, violating the Family Code requirement that both spouses consent to the sale of conjugal property. The "Deed of Transfer of Right" was declared null and void for lack of Gilda's consent.

    Original Title

    17. Guiang vs. CA, GR No. 125172, June 26, 1998;(1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the sale of conjugal property without the consent of both spouses. The facts of the case are that Gilda Corpuz's husband Judie sold their remaining property to another couple, the Guiangs, without Gilda's consent while she was away. Gilda contested the sale. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was not just voidable but totally void, as Gilda's essential consent was absent, violating the Family Code requirement that both spouses consent to the sale of conjugal property. The "Deed of Transfer of Right" was declared null and void for lack of Gilda's consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    357 views2 pages

    Guiang vs. CA, GR No. 125172, June 26, 1998

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the sale of conjugal property without the consent of both spouses. The facts of the case are that Gilda Corpuz's husband Judie sold their remaining property to another couple, the Guiangs, without Gilda's consent while she was away. Gilda contested the sale. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was not just voidable but totally void, as Gilda's essential consent was absent, violating the Family Code requirement that both spouses consent to the sale of conjugal property. The "Deed of Transfer of Right" was declared null and void for lack of Gilda's consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Spouses ANTONIO and LUZVIMINDA GUIANG, petitioners,

    VS.
    COURT OF APPEALS and GILDA CORPUZ, respondents.
    G.R. No. 125172, June 26, 1998

    FACTS:

    Private respondent Gilda Corpuz and Judie Corpuz are legally married spouses. They
    have 3 children, namely: Junie (18 years old), Harriet (17 years old), and Jodie (15 years old).
    The couple bought a 421 square meter lot in Koronadal, South Cotabato from Manuel Callejo
    through a conditional deed of sale. The consideration was payable in instalment. In 1988, the
    couple sold one-half portion of their Lot to petitioner-spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang.
    Since then, Guiang occupied the one-half portion and built their house thereon. They are thus
    adjoining neighbours of the Corpuzes.

    Gilda Corpuz left for Manila to look for work abroad. Unfortunately, she became a victim
    of an illegal recruiter. She was not able to go abroad and stayed sometime in Manila. After his
    wife’s departure, Judie Corpuz seldom went home to the conjugal dwelling. He stayed most of
    the time at his place of work. Harriet (their daughter) learned that her father intended to sell the
    remaining one-half portion of their Lot, including their house to the Guiangs. She wrote a letter
    to her mother, which was replied by Gilda that she was objecting to the sale. However, Harriet
    did not inform her father about the reply, instead gave the letter to Luzviminda Guiang so that
    she would advise her father.

    Judie Corpuz still pushed through the sale, in the absence of his wife. He sold the
    remaining one-half potion through a “Deed of Transfer of Rights”. When Gilda returned home,
    she found that her children were staying with other households, and only Junie was staying in
    their house. Thus, she gathered her children after knowing that her husband was nowhere to be
    found and was knowingly had another wife already. After gathering her children, they stayed in
    their house sold by her husband. The spouses Guiang complained before the Barangay
    authorities for trespassing. The parties thereat signed a document for amicable settlement stating
    that Gilda Corpuz and her three chidren must leave the house voluntarily without any charge.

    Gilda thereafter approached the Barangay for the annulment of the settlement. The said
    annulment not having been made, they stayed put in their house and lot. Spouses Guiang file a
    motion for execution of the amicable settlement with the MTC. However, Private respondent
    Gilda Corpuz filed a complaint against her husband and Petitioner-spouses Guiang to sought the
    declaration of a “ Deed of Transfer of Right” involving the conjugal property, NULL AND
    VOID. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondent. CA affirmed, thus this petition.
    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the “Deed of Transfer of Right” was merely voidable

    RULING:

    “Article 1390 of the Civil Code provides that the following contracts are voidable or
    annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (2) Those
    where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.”
    Gilda’s consent was not obtained thru mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud
    but her consent was TOTALLY INEXISTENT.

    The said contract properly falls within the ambit of Article 124 of the Family Code,
    which was correctly applied by the two lower courts. In sum, the nullity of the contract of sale is
    premised on the absence of private respondent’s consent. To constitute a valid contract, the Civil
    Code requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) CAUSE, (2) OBJECT, and (3)
    CONSENT, the LAST ELEMENT being indubitably absent in the case at bar.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy