Article 97 Case Digest

CASE DIGEST FOR ARTICLE 97 

ALFREDO GOZON,

WINIFRED GOZON, GIL TABIJE, INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC., and ELVIRA GOZON,G.R. NO. 169977,MARCH 18, 2010

Facts:

      ON 22 AUGUST 1994, ALFREDO EXECUTED A DEED OF DONATION OVER THE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THEIR DAUGHTER, WINIFRED GOZON (WINIFRED). THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON, GILTABIJE, IN THE NAME OF WINIFRED, WITHOUT ANNOTATING THE AGREEMENT.

ON 26 OCTOBER 1994, ALFREDO, BY VIRTUE OF A SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOR BY WINIFRED, SOLD THE PROPERTY TO INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC. (IDRI) FOR P18 MILLION. IDRI PAID ALFREDO P18 MILLION, REPRESENTING FULL PAYMENT FOR THE PROPERTY.SUBSEQUENTLY, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON CANCELLED it.

MARIO THEN FILED WITH THE MALABON REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (MALABON RTC) A COMPLAINT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND DAMAGES, ANNULMENT OF DONATION AND SALE, WITH PRELIMINARY MANDATORY AND PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.

In this case, Alfredo was the sole administrator of the property because Elvira, with whom Alfredo was separated in fact, was unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal property. However, as sole administrator of the property, Alfredo still cannot sell the property without the written consent of Elvira or the authority of the court. Without such consent or authority, the sale is void. 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 spouses 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 Marios contention that the Agreement is a continuing offer which may be perfected by Elviras acceptance before the offer is withdrawn, the fact that the property was subsequently donated by Alfredo to Winifred and then sold to IDRI clearly indicates that the offer was already withdrawn.

Issues:Whether or not the share in the net profits and the same is awarded to their child Winifred R. Gozon whose custody is awarded to petitioner.

Ruling: According to the THE DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING EFFECTS:

(1)   THE SPOUSES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO LIVE SEPARATELY FROM EACH OTHER, BUT THE MARRIAGE BONDS SHALL NOT BE SEVERED;

(2)   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);

(3)   THE CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN SHALL BE AWARDED TO THE INNOCENT SPOUSE, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 213 OF THIS CODE; AND In this case THE OFFENDING   SPOUSE SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED FROM INHERITING FROM THE INNOCENT SPOUSE BY INTESTATE SUCCESSION. MOREOVER, PROVISIONS IN FAVOR OF THE OFFENDING SPOUSE MADE IN THE WILL OF THE INNOCENT SPOUSE SHALL BE REVOKED BY OPERATION OF LAW.

In addition in suppoet of Article 43 the termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following effects: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; (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)