8/20/2019 Ravina vs. Villa-Abrille
1/2
142 PATROCINIA RAVINA AND WILFREDO
RAVINA, Petitioners, vs. MARY ANN P. VILLAABRILLE, for
herself a! " #ehalf of IN$RID
D%LYN P. VILLA ABRILLE, IN$REMAR& D%WI$'T
VILLA ABRILLE, IN$RE(OLL DIEL( VILLA
ABRILLE AND IN$RELYN DYAN VILLA ABRILLE,
Respondents.$.R. No. 1)*+* O-o#er 1), 2**/
TOPIC: CPG: Charges upon obligationsPONENTE: QUISIMBING, !ting
C".
A0T'OR:N#$%S:
FACT(
Mar& nn and Pedro 'illa(brille )ere husband and )i*e.
$he& had *our !hildren +herein respondents. $hproperties
involved in this !ase are: +-/0 1ot 2 3 a!4uired b& the spouses
during their 5arriage6 1ot / a!4uired b& Pedro )hen he )as
still single6 7ouse built on lot 2 and / 3 built *ro5 their 8oint
e9orts and thpro!eeds o* a loan *ro5 BP.
+-- Pedro got a 5istress. Pedro o9ered to sell the house and t)o
lots to petitioners Ravina. Mar& nob8e!ted. Pedro still sold
the properties )ithout her !onsent. Pedro, )ith the !onnivan!e
Ravina and so5Civilian r5ed ;or!es +C;GU trans*erred all the
belongings *ro5 the house to an apart5ent anprevented Mar& nn
and the a5ination o* the title.
R$C 3 $he sale o*: 1ot 2 3 void as to ? representing share o*
Mar& nn6 1ot / 3 void as to ? representingshare o* Mar& nn
)ho did not !onsent6 house 3 void as to ?6 pa& Mar& nn the
value o* belongings tha)ere lost6 pa& 5oral and
e>e5plar& da5ages and the !ost o* suit.
C 3 sale o* 1ot / 3 valid6 sale o* 1ot 2 3 null and void6
ordered Pedro to return the value o* the !onsideratioto Ravina6
ordered Ravina to re!onve& the house and 1ot to spouses Pedro
and Mar& nn6 ordered Pedrand Ravina to pa& Mar& nn
5oral and e>e5plar& da5ages.
I((0E(:
+- @hether 1ot 2 is an e>!lusive propert& o* Pedro or
!on8ugal propert&.+0 @hether sale o* 1ot 2 b& Pedro )as
valid !onsidering the absen!e o* Mar& nnAs !onsent.
'ELD:+- Presu5ed to be Con8ugal propert& o* spouses Pedro
and Mar& nn.+0 nnullable )ith =ve &ears
RATIO:+- Petitioner Ravina asserts that 1ot 2 )as e>!lusive
propert& o* Pedro, it being a!4uired b& Pedro thrubarter or
e>!hange )ith his another e>!lusive propert&.
$he Court is not persuaded. No eviden!e )as addu!ed to
sho) that the sub8e!t propert& )as a!4uirethrough e>!hange
or barter. $he presu5ption o* the !on8ugal nature o* the
propert& subsists in the absen!
o* !lear, satis*a!tor& and !onvin!ing eviden!e to over!o5e
said presu5ption or to prove that the sub8e!propert& is
e>!lusivel& o)ned b& Pedro. $he *a!t is, 1ot 2 )as
a!4uired in -/0 during the 5arriage o* Pedroand Mar& nn.
1i!lusivel& to the husband or to the )i*e.D
+0 Signi=!antl&, a sale or en!u5bran!e o* !on8ugal
propert& !on!luded a*ter the e9e!tivit& o* the ;a5ilCode on
ugust E, -//, is governed b& rti!le -0F o* the sa5e Code that
no) treats su!h a disposition tbe void i* done +a )ithout the
!onsent o* both the husband and the )i*e, or +b in !ase o* one
spouseAinabilit&, the authorit& o* the !ourt. rti!le -0F o*
the ;a5il& Code, the governing la) at the ti5e theassailed sale
)as !ontra!ted, is e>pli!it:
8/20/2019 Ravina vs. Villa-Abrille
2/2
R$. -0F. $he ad5inistration and en8o&5ent o* the !on8ugal
partnership propert& shall belong to bothspouses 8ointl&.
In !ase o* disagree5ent, the husbandAs de!ision shall prevail,
sub8e!t to re!ourse to the!ourt b& the )i*e *or proper
re5ed& )hi!h 5ust be availed o* )ithin =ve &ears *ro5 the
date o* the !ontra!i5ple5enting su!h de!ision.
In the event that one spouse is in!apa!itated or other)ise
unable to parti!ipate in the ad5inistration o* th!on8ugal
properties, the other spouse 5a& assu5e sole po)ers o*
ad5inistration. $hese po)ers do noin!lude the po)ers o* disposition
or en!u5bran!e )hi!h 5ust have the authorit& o* the !ourt or
the )ritte!onsent o* the other spouse. In the absen!e o* su!h
authorit& or !onsent, the disposition or en!u5bran!
shall be void. 7o)ever, the transa!tion shall be !onstrued as a
!ontinuing o9er on the part o* th!onsenting spouse and the third
person, and 5a& be per*e!ted as a binding !ontra!t upon the
a!!eptan!eb& the other spouse or authoriation b& the !ourt
be*ore the o9er is )ithdra)n b& either or both o9erors.
$he parti!ular provision in the Ne) Civil Code giving the
)i*e ten +- &ears to annul the alienation oen!u5bran!e )as not
!arried over to the ;a5il& Code. It is thus !lear that
alienation or en!u5bran!e o* the!on8ugal partnership propert&
b& the husband )ithout the !onsent o* the )i*e is null and
void.
7en!e, 8ust li
