Sale by one Spouse of Conjugal Real Property is Void Without the Written Consent of the other Spouse

DOLORES ALEJO, PETITIONER, V. SPOUSES ERNESTO CORTEZ AND PRISCILLA SAN PEDRO, SPOUSES JORGE LEONARDO AND JACINTA LEONARDO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN, RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. No. 206114, June 19, 2017 ].


“x x x.

The key issue in this case is whether the Kasunduan for the sale of a conjugal real property between Jacinta and Dolores as a continuing offer has been converted to a perfected and binding contract. For, if Jorge has not accepted or consented to the said sale, the Kasunduan is considered void rendering the other issues raised herein merely academic.

Sale by one Spouse of Conjugal Real Property is Void 
Without the Written Consent of the other Spouse

Any alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property made during the effectivity of the Family Code is governed by Article 124 thereof which provides:

Article 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. (Emphasis supplied.)

The law is therefore unequivocal when it states that the disposition of conjugal property of one spouse sans the written consent of the other is void. Here, it is an established fact that the Kasunduan was entered into solely by Jacinta and signed by her alone. By plain terms of the law therefore, the Kasunduan is void.

X x x.”