This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| PPA received a copy of the afore-quoted August 15, 2000 Order on August 22, 2000, and seasonably filed its appeal therefrom docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 77668, entitled PPA v. Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al. Of the respondents[45] named in CA-G.R. CV No. 77668, only the Cruz Group moved for the dismissal of PPA's appeal, while the rest filed their respective appellees' briefs. | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Article 173. The wife may, during the marriage, and within ten years from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent, when such consent is required, or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs, after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of the property fraudulently alienated by the husband." According to Article 166, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife's consent. This provision, however, must be read in conjunction with Article 173 of the same Code. The latter states that an action to annul an alienation or encumbrance may be instituted by the wife during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned. Videlicet, the lack of consent on her part will not make the husband's alienation or encumbrance of real property of the conjugal partnership void, but merely voidable.[49] Hence, the Deed is valid until and unless annulled. | |||||