Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th JUDICIAL REGION

Branch 14

Davao City

ANNA GERONIMO

Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. ____________

- versus - For: Annulment of Contract of Sale

PETER PASCUAL

Defendant

x ------------------------------------ x

MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court

respectfully submits this Memorandum, to wit:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Anna Geronimo filed this present case of annulment of contract of sale

between the plaintiff and Peter Pascual. The contract of sale involves a one

bedroom condominium unit covered by a Certificate of Title under the name

of Mr. Raul Geronimo, the plaintiff’s husband, and which was sold to the

defendant without the plaintiff’s consent.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Anna Geronimo married her husband Raul Geronimo in 2006.

The object the Deed of Sale sought to be annulled the one bedroom

condominium unit bought by the husband in 2001. The condominium unit

was covered by a Certificate of Title in the name of Mr. Geronimo.

In April 2009, the plaintiff offered the condominium unit for sale to the

defendant for P2 million and to which the latter replied that “he will call back

once the deed of sale and manager’s check were ready.”

In May 2009, the plaintiff left for the United States. While staying there

plaintiff changed her mind about selling the condominium unit.

While the plaintiff was in the United States, the defendant called the

plaintiff’s husband. Without the knowledge of the plaintiff, her husband

signed the deed of sale of the condominium unit and accepted the

manager’s check of the defendant.

In June 2009, plaintiff was informed by her husband that he already

signed the deed of sale and accepted the manager’s check of the defendant.

Plaintiff told her husband that she had already changed her mind.

Plaintiff offered to the defendant the return of the consideration for the

sale of the condominium unit but the defendant refused.

Thus, this case for annulment of contract of sale of the one bedroom

condominium unit between plaintiff and defendant.

ISSUES

The issues to be resolved in this case are as follows:

1. Whether the one bedroom condominium unit forms part of the

community properties of the Spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo.

2. Whether plaintiff’s right over the joint administration and enjoyment of

the condominium unit was violated when this was sold by her husband

to the defendant without her consent.

3. Whether the contract of sale can be annulled.

ARGUMENTS

1. The one bedroom condominium unit forms part of the conjugal

properties of the Spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo.

The one bedroom condominium unit was bought by Raul Geronimo in

2001. Although the title of the property is solely on his name, the same is a

community property, having been brought into the marriage when the

plaintiff and her husband were married in 2006. This is pursuant to Article 76

of the Family Code, the law in effect at the time of the marriage between the

plaintiff and her husband, which provides that in the absence of any property

regime agreed upon by spouses, the regime of absolute community of

property, which consists of all the property owned by the spouses at the time

of the celebration of the marriage, shall govern their marital property

relationship.

2. Plaintiff’s right over the joint administration and enjoyment of

the one bedroom condominium unit has been violated.

The administration and enjoyment of the condominium unit being a

community property is governed by first paragraph of Article 96 of the

Family Code which provides that these shall belong to both spouses jointly.

In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to

recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed

of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such

decision. While Article 96 of the Family Code speaks only of the

“administration and enjoyment of the community property”, plaintiff submits

that the power to dispose of the community property is within the ambit of

the phrase “administration and enjoyment”. This is for the reason that in the

second paragraph of Article 96, the assumption of powers of a spouse has

been limited and restricted so as not to include the power of disposition,

alienation and encumbrance. This implies, therefore, that the power to

administer is broadly treated under the first paragraph of Article 96 but may

be limited by law as in the case of the second paragraph of the said Article.

In the instant case, the sale of the subject condominium unit, as shown

by the fact that the Deed of Sale thereof was signed only by plaintiff’s

husband, is one where the latter, without suffering from any incapacity

whatsoever, encumbers, alienates or disposes a community property without

the consent of the other spouse who is likewise capacitated. The transaction

is thus within the contemplation of the first paragraph of Article 96 of the

Family Code.

3. The contract of sale should be annulled.

In the case of Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa (G.R. No. 147978, January 23,

2002) the Supreme Court held that the law requires that the disposition of a

conjugal property by the husband as administrator in appropriate cases

requires the written consent of the wife, otherwise, the disposition is void.

The disposition of the community property was clearly made without

the consent of the plaintiff. While it is true that it was the plaintiff who made

the offer to sell the subject condominium unit to the defendant, the plaintiff

had changed her mind while in the US before the acceptance by the

defendant of the offer to sell was known to her. Her change of mind was also

before the defendant handed the manager’s check to the plaintiff’s husband

and at the time plaintiff’s husband signed the deed of sale of the subject

condominium unit. There is thus no consent yet by the plaintiff to speak of

because there was no manifestation of the meeting of the offer and the

acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the

contract, pursuant to Article 1319 of the Civil Code.

Moreover, defendant’s testimony that he will call back once the deed

of sale and manager’s check were ready all the more confirms that there was

no meeting of the minds yet because the acceptance was not absolute and

thus it is tantamount to a qualified acceptance which in effect constitutes a

counter offer pursuant Article 1319 of the Civil Code.

As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Malbarosa v. Court of

Appeals (G.R. No. 125761, April 30, 2003), the acceptance of an offer must

be made known to the offeror. Unless the offeror knows of the acceptance,

there is no meeting of the minds of the parties, no real concurrence of offer

and acceptance. Moreover, the offeror may withdraw its offer and revoke the

same before acceptance thereof by the offeree. The contract is perfected

only from the time an acceptance of an offer is made known to the offeror. In

the instant case, it is clear that the plaintiff had revoked the offer before she

came to know of the acceptance of the said offer by the defendant.

Thus, considering that the disposition of the common property was

made by the plaintiff’s husband without the consent of the plaintiff, pursuant

to Article 96 of the Family Code, the plaintiff has all the right to go to court to

seek the proper remedy which includes the annulment of the contract.

In conclusion, plaintiff is entitled to the annulment of contract with

damages for the sale of the subject one bed room condominium unit.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

this Honorable Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against

defendant by annulling the contract of sale involving the one bed room

condominium unit.

Such other relief which are just and equitable under the circumstances

are likewise prayed for.

Davao City, Philippines, September 22, 2012.

ATTY. CHARNEM B. CAÑETECounsel for the Plaintiff Roll No.: 57294PTR No. 6789; 1/05/12; DavaoIBP No. 7982; 3/20/12; DavaoMCLE Compliance No. III-016 6/14/123rd Flr. Occeña Bldg. Ponce St., Davao City

Copy furnished:

Counsel for DefendantAddress