Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 331 views

    #107 Domingo vs. Molina

    Uploaded by

    Sheilah Mae Padalla
    1. Upon the death of a spouse, the conjugal partnership property enters a regime of co-ownership between the surviving spouse and heirs of the deceased spouse until a final liquidation and partition. 2. While co-owner, the surviving spouse Anastacio had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest in the conjugal property, which consisted of a one-half share and his share as heir of his deceased wife Flora. 3. Therefore, Anastacio's sale of his interest in the property to the Molina spouses was valid to the extent of his interest, though the Molina spouses hold the interest as trustees for any potential shares of Anastacio's co

    Copyright:

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

    #107 Domingo vs. Molina

    Uploaded by

    Sheilah Mae Padalla
    331 views2 pages
    1. Upon the death of a spouse, the conjugal partnership property enters a regime of co-ownership between the surviving spouse and heirs of the deceased spouse until a final liquidation and partition. 2. While co-owner, the surviving spouse Anastacio had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest in the conjugal property, which consisted of a one-half share and his share as heir of his deceased wife Flora. 3. Therefore, Anastacio's sale of his interest in the property to the Molina spouses was valid to the extent of his interest, though the Molina spouses hold the interest as trustees for any potential shares of Anastacio's co

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Upon the death of a spouse, the conjugal partnership property enters a regime of co-ownership between the surviving spouse and heirs of the deceased spouse until a final liquidation and partition. 2. While co-owner, the surviving spouse Anastacio had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest in the conjugal property, which consisted of a one-half share and his share as heir of his deceased wife Flora. 3. Therefore, Anastacio's sale of his interest in the property to the Molina spouses was valid to the extent of his interest, though the Molina spouses hold the interest as trustees for any potential shares of Anastacio's co

    Copyright:

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

    #107 Domingo vs. Molina

    Uploaded by

    Sheilah Mae Padalla
    1. Upon the death of a spouse, the conjugal partnership property enters a regime of co-ownership between the surviving spouse and heirs of the deceased spouse until a final liquidation and partition. 2. While co-owner, the surviving spouse Anastacio had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest in the conjugal property, which consisted of a one-half share and his share as heir of his deceased wife Flora. 3. Therefore, Anastacio's sale of his interest in the property to the Molina spouses was valid to the extent of his interest, though the Molina spouses hold the interest as trustees for any potential shares of Anastacio's co

    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

    Conjugal Partnership of Gains: Dissolution

    MELECIO DOMINGO vs. SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA and ELENA B. MOLINA,


    substituted by ESTER MOLINA
    G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016, SECOND DIVISION (BRION, J.)

    DOCTRINE:
    If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall
    liquidate the conjugal partnership property either judicially or extrajudicially within one
    year from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six month period
    no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugal
    partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void.

    FACTS:
    The spouses Anastacio and Flora Domingo bought a parcel of land. During his
    lifetime, Anastacio borrowed money from the respondent spouses Genaro and Elena
    Molina. 10 years after Flora’s death, Anastacio sold his interest over the land to the
    spouses Molina to answer for his debts.
    Melecio, one of the children of Anastacio and Flora, learned of the transfer and
    filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title and Recovery of Ownership against the
    spouses Molina. Melecio claims that Anastacio gave the subject property to the spouses
    Molina to serve as collateral for the money that Anastacio borrowed. Anastacio could
    not have validly sold the interest over the subject property without Flora’s consent, as
    Flora was already dead at the time of the sale.
    The RTC dismissed the case because Melecio failed to establish his claim. The
    RTC also held that Anastacio could dispose of conjugal property without Flora’s consent
    since the sale was necessary to answer for conjugal liabilities. The CA affirmed the RTC
    ruling in toto. The CA also held that Flora’s death is immaterial because Anastacio only
    sold his rights, excluding Flora’s interest, over the lot to the spouses Molina.1

    ISSUE:
    Whether the sale of a conjugal property to the spouses Molina without Flora’s
    consent is valid and legal?

    RULING:
    YES. Article 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal
    partnership property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the
    estate of the deceased.
    In the case of Taningco v. Register of Deeds of Laguna, we held that the
    properties of a dissolved conjugal partnership fall under the regime of co-ownership
    among the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse until final liquidation
    and partition. The surviving spouse, however, has an actual and vested one-half
    undivided share of the properties, which does not consist of determinate and
    segregated properties until liquidation and partition of the conjugal partnership.
    An implied ordinary co-ownership ensued among Flora’s surviving heirs,
    including Anastacio, with respect to Flora’s share of the conjugal partnership until final
    liquidation and partition; Anastacio, on the other hand, owns one-half of the original
    conjugal partnership properties as his share, but this is an undivided interest.
    Thus, Anastacio, as co-owner, cannot claim title to any specific portion of the
    conjugal properties without an actual partition being first done either by agreement or by
    judicial decree. Nonetheless, Anastacio had the right to freely sell and dispose of his
    undivided interest in the subject property.
    The OCT annotation of the sale to the spouses Molina reads that "only the rights,
    interests and participation of Anastacio Domingo, married to Flora Dela Cruz, is hereby
    sold, transferred, and conveyed unto the said vendees x x x x ”. At the time of the sale,
    Anastacio’s undivided interest in the conjugal properties consisted of: (1) one-half of the
    entire conjugal properties; and (2) his share as Flora’s heir on the conjugal properties.
    Anastacio, as a co-owner, had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided
    interest, but not the interest of his co-owners. Consequently, Anastactio’s sale to the
    spouses Molina without the consent of the other co-owners was not totally void, for
    Anastacio’s rights or a portion thereof were thereby effectively transferred, making the
    spouses Molina a co-owner of the subject property to the extent of Anastacio’s interest.
    This result conforms with the well-established principle that the binding force of a
    contract must be recognized as far as it is legally possible to do so (quando res non
    valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest).
    The spouses Molina would be a trustee for the benefit of the co-heirs of
    Anastacio in respect of any portion that might belong to the co-heirs after liquidation and
    partition.
    Melecio’s recourse as a co-owner of the conjugal properties, including the
    subject property, is an action for partition under Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court.
    As held in the case of Heirs of Protacio Go, Sr., "it is now settled that the appropriate
    recourse of co-owners in cases where their consent were not secured in a sale of the
    entire property as well as in a sale merely of the undivided shares of some of the co-
    owners is an action for PARTITION under Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court.

    You might also like