Dennis Uy v. Myra Fuentes

 

Dennis Uy v. Myra Fuentes

G.R. No. 241699

August 4, 2021

 

FACTS:

Dennis T. Uy Tuazon (Tuazon) and Myra V. Fuentes are co-owners of DM building, which is being leased to World Wiser International, Inc (World Wiser) and Jerzon Manpower and Trading, Inc (Jerzon). Tuazon and Fuentes instituted the proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriage in the Regional Trial Court wherein Fuentes was authorized to sell the DM building which was sold to Philippine Coast Guard Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (PCGSLAI). After the judgment declaring the marriage null and void attained finality, the liquidation of DM building was included. Fuentes sent a notice to vacate to World Wiser while Jerzon was ordered closed and no longer occupying the DM building. Subsequently, the Regional Trial Court approved the contract of sale between Fuentes and PCGSLAI which prompted the former to file an unlawful detainer case against World Wiser for its refusal to vacate the DM building. World Wiser and Tuazon claim that Fuentes had knowledge of the contracts of lease prior to the filing of the unlawful detainer case and her inaction constitutes an implied consent and acceptance thereto. Fuentes, on the other hand, emphasized that the law requires written consent for conveyances involving common property and her knowledge of the lease contract between Tuazon and World Wiser did not amount to implied consent or knowledge since she has been estranged to Tuazon and they are living separately. Both the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Fuentes.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the disposition of a common property without the other spouse’ consent is valid.

HELD:

No. The law requires written consent of the other spouse, otherwise, the disposition of common property is void. In Alejo v. Sps. Cortez, et al., where the husband demanded compliance with the contract of sale and required payment of the balance of the purchase price from the seller, despite his lack of written consent thereof nor knowledge of the transaction entered by the wife, the Court maintained that the conveyance is void. The Court pronounced that the law is unequivocal when it states that the disposition of conjugal property of one spouse sans the written consent of the other is void. As applied in this case, the lower courts aptly declared the lease contracts executed without the written consent of Fuentes as void. The subject of the contracts of lease involved common property; hence, for the contracts to be effective, the consent of both husband and wife must concur. It is immaterial whether Fuentes had knowledge of the questioned transactions as the latter admittedly did not give her written consent to the contracts. Significantly, Tuazon himself admitted that Fuentes did not participate nor sign the contracts of lease. Unfortunately for petitioners, knowledge or being merely aware of a transaction is not consent.