24.
Domingo vs Molina Name of Digester:
G.R. No. 200274 Date: April 20, 2016 Ponente:
Subject / Syllabus Topic: VI. (G) Void Marriages (1) Kinds of Void Marriages (h) Non-Compliance Under FC Arts. 53, 52 (7) (i) Effect
of Death
Petitioner: MELECIO DOMINGO Respondent: SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA and ELENA B.
MOLINA, substituted by ESTER MOLINA
Doctrine: Arts. 103, 130
Facts:
On June 15, 1951, the spouses Anastacio and Flora Domingo bought a property in Camiling, Tarlac, consisting of a one-half
undivided portion over an 18,164 sq.m parcel of land.
Anastacio has been borrowing money from the respondent spouses Genaro and Elena Molina all throughout his life. 10
years after the death of Flora, in 1978, Anastacio sold his interest over the land to the spouses Molina to answer for his
debts. It was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and the entire one-half undivided portion of the land was
transferred to them.
In 1999, Melecio Domingo, son of Anastacio and Flora filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title and Recovery of Ownership
against the spouses Molina when he learned of the transfer. He alleges that Anastacio could not have validly sold the
interest over the subject property without Flora’s consent, as she was already dead at the time of the sale.
The spouses Molina asserted that Anastacio surrendered the title to the subject property to answer for his debts and told
them that they already own half of the land. They have been in possession of the subject property before the title was
registered under their names and have religiously paid the property’s real estate taxes. The adopted son of the spouses
Molina, Cornelio Molina, substituted them when they died during the pendency of the case.
The RTC dismissed the case because Melecio failed to establish his claim that his father did not sell the property to the
spouses Molina considering that Anastacio could dispose of conjugal property to answer for conjugal liabilities.
Furthermore, it denied Melecio’s motion for reconsideration of the RTC ruling and so he proceeded with his appeal to the
CA.
The CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto. It held that Flora’s death is immaterial because Anastacio only sold his rights over
the lot to the spouses Molina, excluding Flora’s interest.
Issue/s: Ruling:
W/N the sale of a conjugal property to the spouses Petition is DENIED. The decision of CA is
Molina without Flora’s consent is valid and legal AFFIRMED.
Holding:
YES. Melecio argues that the sale of the disputed property to the spouses Molina is void without Flora’s consent. However,
this argument is unmeritorious.
Anastacio and Flora Domingo married before the Family Code’s effectivity which was on August 3, 1988 and so their
property relation is a conjugal partnership. It dissolved when Flora died in 1968, pursuant to Article 175(1) of the Civil
Code, now Article 126 (1) of the Family Code
Civil Code, Art. 175. “The conjugal partnership of gains terminates: (1) Upon the death of either spouse. x x x”
Article 130 of the Family Code requires the liquidation of the conjugal partnership upon death of a spouse and prohibits
any disposition or encumbrance of the conjugal property prior to the conjugal partnership liquidation, to quote:
Article 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal partnership property shall be
liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the conjugal partnership
property either judicially or extrajudicially within one year from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the
lapse of the six- month period no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugal
partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void.
While Article 130 of the Family Code provides that any disposition involving the conjugal property without prior liquidation
of the partnership shall be void, this rule does not apply since the provisions of the Family Code shall be without
prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.
Notes:
Article 103- “Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the community property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased. If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the community
property either judicially or extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six months period,
no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the community property of the terminated marriage shall be void.
Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of
complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. (n)”
