CASE DIGEST: Siochi v. Gozon (G.R. No. 169900; March 18, 2010)
CASE DIGEST: MARIO SIOCHI, Petitioner, vs. ALFREDO GOZON, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 169900; March 18, 2010.
DECISION OF THE COURT: The Supreme Court found the ruling of the CA to be in error.
CASE DIGEST: MARIO SIOCHI, Petitioner, vs. ALFREDO GOZON, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 169900; March 18, 2010.
FIRST ISSUE: In this case, the Supreme Court once again had the chance to mention that sale of the property forming part of the conjugal partnership without the consent of the other spouse is void. This is true even if the spouses were separated in fact and Alfredo was the sole administrator of the property at the time of sale.
The sale is void absent such consent or authority. The absence of the consent of one of the spouse renders the entire sale void, including the portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the spouse who contracted the sale. Even if the other spouse actively participated in negotiating for the sale of the property, that other spouse’s written consent to the sale is still required by law for its validity. The Agreement entered into by Alfredo and Mario was without the written consent of Elvira. Thus, the Agreement is entirely void. As regards Mario’s contention that the Agreement is a continuing offer which may be perfected by Elvira’s acceptance before the offer is withdrawn, the fact that the property was subsequently donated by Alfredo to Winifred and then sold to IDRI clearly indicates that the offer was already withdrawn.
The sale is void absent such consent or authority. The absence of the consent of one of the spouse renders the entire sale void, including the portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the spouse who contracted the sale. Even if the other spouse actively participated in negotiating for the sale of the property, that other spouse’s written consent to the sale is still required by law for its validity. The Agreement entered into by Alfredo and Mario was without the written consent of Elvira. Thus, the Agreement is entirely void. As regards Mario’s contention that the Agreement is a continuing offer which may be perfected by Elvira’s acceptance before the offer is withdrawn, the fact that the property was subsequently donated by Alfredo to Winifred and then sold to IDRI clearly indicates that the offer was already withdrawn.SECOND ISSUE: It was ruled by the CA that the one-half undivided share of Alfredo in the property was already forfeited in favor of their daughter based on the ruling of the RTC that the offending spouse in an action for legal separation is deprived of his share in the net profits of the conjugal properties.
DECISION OF THE COURT: The Supreme Court found the ruling of the CA to be in error.
Under Article 63 of the Family Code, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of article 43(2).
Article 43 of the Family Code likewise provides that, the termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following:
xxx (2) the absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or, in default of children, the innocent spouse.
Therefore, among the effects of the decree of legal separation is that the conjugal partnership is dissolved and liquidated and the offending spouse would have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership. It is only the share in the net profits which is forfeited in favor of their daughter. Article 102(4) of the Family Code provides that “[f]or purposes of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture in accordance with Article 43, No. (2) and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall be the increase in value between the market value of the community property at the time of the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution.” Clearly, what is forfeited in favor of their daughter is not his share in the conjugal partnership property but merely in the net profits of the conjugal partnership property.
MORE READINGS ON THIS:
Alinas v. Alinas, 551 SCRA 154
Alinas v. Alinas, 551 SCRA 154
Homeowners Savings Bank v. Dailo, 493 Phil. 436
Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa, 425 Phil. 346
CASE DIGEST: MARIO SIOCHI, Petitioner, vs. ALFREDO GOZON, et al., Respondents. G.R. No. 169900; March 18, 2010.
This case involves an action for legal separation. In said case, it was ruled by the CA that the one-half undivided share of the erring spouse in the property was already forfeited in favor of their daughter. This ruling by the CA was based on the ruling of the court a quo that the offending spouse in an action for legal separation is deprived of his share in the net profits of the conjugal properties.
DECISION: The CA ruling is not correct.
If there is a decree of legal separation, under Article 63 of the Family Code, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Article 43(2). The offending spouse has no right to the fruits of the community or conjugal property.
Thus, among the effects of the decree of legal separation is that the conjugal partnership is dissolved and liquidated and the offending spouse would have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership. It is only the share in the net profits which is forfeited in favor of their daughter. Article 102(4) of the Family Code provides that “[f]or purposes of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture in accordance with Article 43, No. (2) and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall be the increase in value between the market value of the community property at the time of the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution.” Clearly, what is forfeited in favor of their daughter is not his share in the conjugal partnership property but merely in the net profits of the conjugal partnership property.
