Scribd
Upload
162 views1 page

Siochi Vs Gozon

This case involves a parcel of land owned by Alfredo and Elvira Gozon. Elvira filed for legal separation from Alfredo in 1991. While the case was pending, Alfredo entered into an agreement to sell the property to Macario Siochi. However, Alfredo failed to comply with terms of the agreement. In 1994, the court decreed the legal separation of Alfredo and Elvira. The court deemed the property to be conjugal property. Alfredo then donated the property to his daughter Winifred. Winifred then sold the property to IDRI. The court ruled that Alfredo did not have the authority to sell the property without Elvira's consent, and that his share of

Uploaded by

Shekina_marie123
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
162 views1 page

Siochi Vs Gozon

This case involves a parcel of land owned by Alfredo and Elvira Gozon. Elvira filed for legal separation from Alfredo in 1991. While the case was pending, Alfredo entered into an agreement to sell the property to Macario Siochi. However, Alfredo failed to comply with terms of the agreement. In 1994, the court decreed the legal separation of Alfredo and Elvira. The court deemed the property to be conjugal property. Alfredo then donated the property to his daughter Winifred. Winifred then sold the property to IDRI. The court ruled that Alfredo did not have the authority to sell the property without Elvira's consent, and that his share of

Uploaded by

Shekina_marie123
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SIOCHI VS GOZON

FACTS:
The case involved a 30k sq. m. parcel of
land which is situated in Malabon, Metro Manila
registered in the name of Alfredo Gozon married to
Elvira Gozon.
On 1991, Elvira filed a petition for legal
separation against Alfredo and on 1992, a notice of
lis pendens annotated on TCT No. 5357. While the
case was still pending, Alfredo entered into an
agreement of Buy and Sell with Macario Siochi
involving the property for the price of 18M. The
agreement included: (1) secure an affidavit from
Elvira that the property is Alfredos exclusive
property and to annotate the Agreement at the back
of TCT No. 5357; (2) secure the approval of Cavite
RTC to exclude the property from the LS case; (3)
secure the removal of the lis pendens pertaining to
the said case and annotated on TCT No. 5357.
However, Alfredo failed to comply with the
agreement. After paying 5M as partial payment,
Macario took possession of the property and the
agreement was annotated on 1993.
On 1994, the Cavite RTC rendered a
decision decreeing the LS of Alfredo and Elvira and
the dissolution and liquidation of their conjugal
partnership of gains but, being the offending spouse,
Alfredos share of net profits was forfeite in favor of
their child Winifred Gozon whom the spouses are
required to mutually support. The property was
deemed conjugal property.
Alfredo then executed a Deed of Donation
in favor of Winifred. The Register of Deed of
Malabon cancelled TCT No. 537 and issued another
one in the name of Winifred without the agreement
and the notice of lis pendens being annotated.
Alfredo, by virtue of a Special power of Attorney
executed in his favor by Winifred, sold the property
to IDRI for 18M. Mario filed a complaint before
Malabon RTC.
IDRIs argument: It is a buyer of good faith and for
value.
Marios argument: Agreement should be treated as a
continuing offer which may be perfected by the
acceptance of Elvira before the offer is withdrawn.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not Alfredo is entitled to sell
the conjugal property; and
(2) Whether or not the undivided share of
Alfredo in the property is forfeited in favor
of Winifred.
HELD: BOTH NO
(1) Alfredo was the sole administrator of the
property because Elvira was unable to
participate in the administration of the conjugal
property. However, Alfredo still cannot sell the
property without the written consent of Elvira
or the authority of the court. Without such
authority or consent, the sale is void. Even if the
other spouse actively participated, the written
consent to the sale is still required by law for its
validity (application of Article 124). Also, the fact
that the property was donated to Winifred then
sold to IDRI clearly indicates that the offer to
Macario was withdrawn.
(2) Article 63 par 2 and Article 43 par 2 states that
among the effects of LS is the dissolution and
liquidation of conjugal partnership and the
offending spouse would have no right to any
share of the net profits earned by the conjugal
partnership. It is only the Alfredos share in the
net profits which is forfeited in favor of
Winifred. Clearly, what was forfeited in favor of
Winifred is not Alfredos share in the conjugal
partnership property but merely in the net
profits of the conjugal partnership of property.

You might also like