- Petitioner
- The Commoner Lending Corporation
- Respondent
- Rafael Balandra
- Citation
- G.R. No. 247646
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Division
- Third Division
- Ponente
- Inting, J.
- Decided
- March 29, 2023
Summary
Supreme Court case involving validity of Real Estate Mortgage over conjugal property executed by wife without husband's written consent through forged General Power of Attorney. While lower courts found the mortgage void due to forgery and lack of consent, the Supreme Court distinguished Family Code void transactions from Civil Code void contracts. The Court held that unauthorized encumbrance under Article 124 of Family Code constitutes a 'continuing offer' that can be perfected by subsequent acceptance. Rafael's undertaking to settle the loan and partial payments constituted acceptance, perfecting the previously unauthorized mortgage into a binding contract under estoppel principles. The decision clarifies the special nature of void conjugal property transactions under the Family Code.
Intellegal Wiki · Key Holding
Affirmed the findings of forgery but reversed the legal characterization, holding that an unauthorized encumbrance of conjugal property under Family Code Article 124 is not void in the same way as a Civil Code Article 1409 contract but constitutes a 'continuing offer' that the non-consenting spouse may perfect by acceptance; the respondent's undertaking to settle the loan and his partial payments constituted such acceptance, binding the mortgage under estoppel (Article 1431).
An editorially maintained summary of the rule this Supreme Court decision is cited for — not legal advice.