Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    G.R. No. 200274 Domingo v. Spouses Molina 20 April 2016

    Uploaded by

    Red Collins
    1. The Supreme Court denied Melecio Domingo's petition challenging the transfer of a property in Camiling, Tarlac to the Spouses Molina. 2. While the sale of the property without Flora Domingo's consent was void, upon her death Anastacio could freely sell his undivided interest in the property. 3. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings that there was no fraud involved in the sale of the property to the Spouses Molina. Melecio's remedy was to pursue a partition action, not to invalidate the sale.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 200274 Domingo v. Spouses Molina 20 April 2016

    Uploaded by

    Red Collins
    9 views2 pages
    1. The Supreme Court denied Melecio Domingo's petition challenging the transfer of a property in Camiling, Tarlac to the Spouses Molina. 2. While the sale of the property without Flora Domingo's consent was void, upon her death Anastacio could freely sell his undivided interest in the property. 3. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings that there was no fraud involved in the sale of the property to the Spouses Molina. Melecio's remedy was to pursue a partition action, not to invalidate the sale.

    Original Title

    G.R.-No.-200274

    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. The Supreme Court denied Melecio Domingo's petition challenging the transfer of a property in Camiling, Tarlac to the Spouses Molina. 2. While the sale of the property without Flora Domingo's consent was void, upon her death Anastacio could freely sell his undivided interest in the property. 3. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings that there was no fraud involved in the sale of the property to the Spouses Molina. Melecio's remedy was to pursue a partition action, not to invalidate the sale.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 200274 Domingo v. Spouses Molina 20 April 2016

    Uploaded by

    Red Collins
    1. The Supreme Court denied Melecio Domingo's petition challenging the transfer of a property in Camiling, Tarlac to the Spouses Molina. 2. While the sale of the property without Flora Domingo's consent was void, upon her death Anastacio could freely sell his undivided interest in the property. 3. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings that there was no fraud involved in the sale of the property to the Spouses Molina. Melecio's remedy was to pursue a partition action, not to invalidate the sale.

    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

    G.R. No.

    200274

    Domingo v. Spouses Molina

    20 April 2016

    Facts:

    Anastacio and Flora Domingo bought a property in Camiling, Tarlac in 1951. Anastacio
    borrowed money from Genaro and Elena Molina, who sold his interest to them in 1978. In 1995,
    Anastacio's interest was transferred to Molina, and Melecio filed a complaint against them in 1999.
    The spouses Molina claimed Anastacio surrendered the title to answer for his debts and that they
    already owned half of the land. The spouses Molina presented Jaime Garlitos as their sole witness,
    claiming that Melecio built a house on the property without their consent.

    The Regional Trial Court dismissed a case against Melecio, stating he failed to prove
    Anastacio did not sell property to Molina's spouses. The court also ruled Anastacio could dispose of
    conjugal property without Flora's consent, as it was necessary for conjugal liabilities. Melecio
    appealed to the CA.

    A 2011 decision by the RTC was upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA), which found that
    Melecio was unable to establish fraud in the property transfer to the Molina spouses. Flora's death
    was deemed inconsequential by the CA as Anastacio simply transferred his rights—not Flora's—
    over the parcel to the Molina spouses. Additionally, the CA declared that the widower is not
    prohibited from selling real estate that was formerly owned by the married couple in order to
    realize gains.

    Melecio appealed the CA decision by filing a petition for review on certiorari, claiming that
    fraud was involved in the transfer of the subject property, that the action had not yet prescribed,
    and that it was unlawful for the husband and wife to sell the conjugal partnership's land without
    their agreement.

    However, the respondents made arguments in their Appeal Brief, claiming that Melecio's
    attorney acknowledged that Anastacio had given the lot title as payment for a debt of Php30,000.00
    and that the sale and ownership transfer of the subject property were completed and perfected by
    the constructive delivery of the title and the spouses Molina's exercise of their ownership
    attributes.

    Issue:

    1. Whether it is legitimate and lawful for the spouses Molina to sell a marital property
    to each other without Flora's approval
    2. Whether there was fraud involved in the subject property's transfer to the Molina
    spouses.

    Ruling:

    The petition was DENIED. The court ruled that the sale of a property to spouses Molina
    without Flora's consent was void. Anastacio and Flora's conjugal partnership was dissolved upon
    Flora's death in 1968, and the property relations were governed by the Family Code. The conjugal
    partnership property was liquidated in the same proceeding for the estate settlement of the
    deceased spouse. Anastacio, as a co-owner, could not claim title to any specific portion of the
    conjugal properties without an actual partition being first done. However, he had the right to freely
    sell and dispose of his undivided interest. The spouses Molina became co-owners of the subject
    property to the extent of Anastacio's interest, and the binding force of a contract must be
    recognized as far as legally possible.

    The spouses Molina would serve as trustees for Anastacio's co-heirs after liquidation and
    partition. The sale of conjugal properties cannot be made by the surviving spouse without legal
    requirements, and the sale is void as to the deceased spouse's share. Melecio's recourse as co-
    owner of the conjugal properties is an action for partition under Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of
    Court. The lower courts found no fraud in the sale, and the CA and RTC concluded that there was no
    fraud. The court denied the petition for review on certiorari.

    You might also like