Marital Consent Is Key: Spousal Rights in Property Sales Under Article 124

When a married person sells property without the other spouse's consent, is the sale valid? The Supreme Court's ruling in Spouses Alinas v. Spouses Alinas (G.R. No. 158040, April 14, 2008) provides a clear answer: under Article 124 of the Family Code, such a disposition is void in its entirety. The case also clarifies important rules on certificates of title, redemption rights, and when compensation (set-off) is allowed. For married couples and buyers alike, the decision is a critical reminder of the legal weight of spousal consent.

The Facts of the Case

Spouses Onesiforo and Rosario Alinas owned two lots in Ozamis City. The couple separated in 1982, with Rosario moving to Pagadian City and Onesiforo to Manila. They left the properties, which were mortgaged to the Social Security System (SSS) and the Rural Bank of Oroquieta City (RBO), in the care of relatives.

In 1993, the couple discovered that both lots were already titled in the name of Onesiforo's brother, Victor, and his wife, Elena. Lot 896-B-9-A had been foreclosed by the RBO, which later sold it to the respondents. Lot 896-B-9-B was redeemed from the SSS by Victor using a Special Power of Attorney from Onesiforo, and an Absolute Deed of Sale dated March 10, 1989, conveyed the lot to the respondents. Notably, Rosario's signature did not appear on any of these documents.

The petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession, arguing that the respondents had taken advantage of blank signed papers and that the sale of the conjugal property was void without Rosario's consent.

The Issue Before the Court

The central legal question was whether Onesiforo's sale of Lot 896-B-9-B, a conjugal property, was valid despite the absence of his wife's written consent. A related issue involved the petitioners' attempt to question the authenticity of the Register of Deeds' signature on the certificates of title.

The Ruling: Consent Is Mandatory

The Supreme Court ruled that the sale of Lot 896-B-9-B was null and void in its entirety. The Court applied Article 124 of the Family Code, which states that the administration of conjugal partnership property belongs to both spouses jointly. While one spouse may assume sole administration if the other is incapacitated, that power does not include disposition or encumbrance without the court's authority or the other spouse's written consent. In the absence of such consent, the disposition is void.

The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' attempt to apply equity to uphold the sale of Onesiforo's one-half share. Citing Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Dailo and Guiang v. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that the absence of one spouse's consent renders the entire sale void, including the portion belonging to the selling spouse.

The Court also noted that the respondents were not innocent purchasers. They knew the property was conjugal, knew the couple had separated, and saw that Rosario's signature was absent. As the Court stated, citing Heirs of Aguilar-Reyes v. Spouses Mijares, "a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith."

Other Key Points of the Decision

Certificates of title cannot be attacked collaterally. The petitioners' attempt to question the Register of Deeds' signature was a collateral attack on TCT No. T-17394, which is prohibited under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. A certificate of title can only be altered or cancelled in a direct proceeding.

Ownership of Lot 896-B-9-A was upheld. Since the petitioners did not appeal the trial court's ruling that the respondents validly acquired this lot from the RBO, the Court affirmed their ownership. The sale occurred after the redemption period had lapsed, and title had already passed to the bank.

Reimbursement with interest. The respondents were entitled to be refunded the redemption price of P111,110.09. The Court applied the rule from Heirs of Aguilar-Reyes: interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the complaint until finality of the decision, and 12% per annum after the judgment becomes final and executory until full payment.

No set-off without liquidated debts. The petitioners sought to offset the redemption price against rental income from the properties. The Court rejected this, citing Article 1279 of the Civil Code, which requires that both debts be liquidated and demandable before compensation can apply. No definite rental amounts were established, so no set-off was possible.

Practical Takeaways

• A spouse cannot sell conjugal property alone. Under Article 124 of the Family Code, any disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property without the other spouse's written consent or court authority is void — not just voidable — in its entirety.
• Buyers must verify spousal consent. Purchasers who know or should know that a property is conjugal and that the seller's spouse has not consented risk losing both the property and their money. Good faith requires more than a signed deed; it requires diligence.
• Certificates of title are strong evidence. A Torrens title cannot be questioned through a collateral attack. Challenges to a title's validity must be made in a direct proceeding.
• Reimbursement is possible, but interest rates vary. A seller who loses a void sale may still be ordered to refund the purchase price or redemption amount, with interest computed from the filing of the complaint at 6% per annum, rising to 12% after finality.
• Set-off requires certainty. Debts can only be offset against each other if both are liquidated, due, and demandable. Vague claims for rentals or expenses will not support compensation.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.