CALIMLIM- CANULLAS
vs.
FORTUN
FACTS:
Petitioner Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas
was married to Fernando Canullas. They
have children and lived
in the residential land in question which
Fernando inherited the land after his
father died.
Years after, Fernando abandoned his
family and was living with rivate
resondent Cora!on. "#oth were
convicted of concubinage in a $udgment
rendered the Court of First %nstance
which has become final
during the endency of this etition.&
Fernado sold the said inherited land with
the house thereon to Cora!on. 'nable to
ta(e ossession of the
said roerty, Cora!on filed a
comlaint for quieting of title and
damages against Mercedes.
)owever, Mercedes claimed that the sale
of the land, with the house and
imrovements, was null and
void because they are con$ugal
roerties and she had not given her
consent.
*esondent Court "Fortun as $udge&
rincially declared Cora!on as the
lawful owner of the land in
question and + of the house erected
on said land.
'on reconsideration rayed for by
Mercedes, resondent Court amended
its decision and resolved that
indeed Cora!on was the true and lawful
owner of the
land
but declared the sale of the con$ugal
house
and
imrovements null and void.
CALIMLIM- CANULLAS
vs.
FORTUN
FACTS:
Petitioner Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas
was married to Fernando Canullas. They
have children and lived
in the residential land in question which
Fernando inherited the land after his
father died.
Years after, Fernando abandoned his
family and was living with rivate
resondent Cora!on. "#oth were
convicted of concubinage in a $udgment
rendered the Court of First %nstance
which has become final
during the endency of this etition.&
Fernado sold the said inherited land with
the house thereon to Cora!on. 'nable to
ta(e ossession of the
said roerty, Cora!on filed a
comlaint for quieting of title and
damages against Mercedes.
)owever, Mercedes claimed that the sale
of the land, with the house and
imrovements, was null and
void because they are con$ugal
roerties and she had not given her
consent.
*esondent Court "Fortun as $udge&
rincially declared Cora!on as the
lawful owner of the land in
question and + of the house erected
on said land.
'on reconsideration rayed for by
Mercedes, resondent Court amended
its decision and resolved that
indeed Cora!on was the true and lawful
owner of the
land
but declared the sale of the con$ugal
house
and
imrovements null and void.
CALIMLIM- CANULLAS
vs.
FORTUN
FACTS:
Petitioner Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas
was married to Fernando Canullas. They
have children and lived
in the residential land in question which
Fernando inherited the land after his
father died.
Years after, Fernando abandoned his
family and was living with rivate
resondent Cora!on. "#oth were
convicted of concubinage in a $udgment
rendered the Court of First %nstance
which has become final
during the endency of this etition.&
Fernado sold the said inherited land with
the house thereon to Cora!on. 'nable to
ta(e ossession of the
said roerty, Cora!on filed a
comlaint for quieting of title and
damages against Mercedes.
)owever, Mercedes claimed that the sale
of the land, with the house and
imrovements, was null and
void because they are con$ugal
roerties and she had not given her
consent.
*esondent Court "Fortun as $udge&
rincially declared Cora!on as the
lawful owner of the land in
question and + of the house erected
on said land.
'on reconsideration rayed for by
Mercedes, resondent Court amended
its decision and resolved that
indeed Cora!on was the true and lawful
owner of the
land
but declared the sale of the con$ugal
house
and
imrovements null and void.
certain persons, by reason of the relation of trust or
their peculiar control over the property, from acquiring
such property in their trust or control either directly or
indirectly and even at a public or judicial auction as
follows: (1) guardians; (2) agents; (3) administrators;
(4)public officers and employees; judicial officers and
employees, prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers; and
(6) others especially disqualified by law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the contract of sale between appellant
and his father-in-law, the late Francisco Militante over
the property was void because it was made when
plaintiff was counsel of his father-in-law in a land
registration case involving the property in dispute.
RULING:
The stipulated facts and exhibits of record
indisputably established plaintiff’s lack of cause of
action and justified the outright dismissal of the
complaint. Plaintiff’s claim of ownership to the land in
question was predicated on the sale thereof for
P2,000.00 made in 1956 by his father-in-law,
Francisco Militante, in his favor, at a time when
Militante’s application for registration thereof had
already been dismissed by the Iloilo land registration
court and was pending appeal in the Court of
Appeals.
Hence, there was no right or title to the land that could
be transferred or sold by Militante’s purported sale in
1956 in favor of plaintiff. Manifestly, then plaintiff’s
complaint against defendant, to be declared absolute
owner of the land and to be restored to possession
thereof with damages was bereft of any factual or
legal basis.
Article 1491 of our Civil Code (like Article 1459 of the
Spanish Civil Code) prohibits in its six paragraphs
