LEGAL OPINION

Rommelito Francisco E. MacarayoAUF JD-1Legal ResearchAtty. Francisco Yabut

DATE: February 4, 2013TO: Atty. Yabut Lead Lawyer for the Penduko CaseSUBJECT: Legal Opinion on the case filed by Mrs. Maria Sinukwan-Penduko entitled IN RE PETITION FOR JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO BE DECLARED AS THE SOLE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY against Pedro Penduko.

INTRODUCTION

This is a case of a husband wanting to manage the conjugal property even if he is in a far-off land by using the law of principal-agent as a legal means to transfer his rights to a third party.

FACTS

Using the interview of Petitioner Maria Sinukwan-Penduko as basis, the following are the antecedent facts of the case:

Pedro Peduko, herein respondent, and Maria Sinukwan-Penduko, herein petitioner, were married in civil rites on October 23, 1990 and bore a child named Tinkerbelle Sinukwan Penduko, now 20 years old, on December 25, 1992.

Respondent brought into his marriage with petitioner, a parcel of land situated in Barangay Sto. Rosario, Angeles City, specifically located at No. 1 Abakada Street, Villa-Pampang Subdivision, Angeles City, covered by Transfer Certificate Title No. 01234 registered with the Register of Deeds of Angeles City.

Sometime in January 1993, respondent left for Japan and never came back. Though Pedro regularly sent money as financial support to his family and to contribute to the construction of their house being built in the said parcel of land, sometime in 2001, it is undisputed that Pedro stopped sending support in January 2007.

Sometime in April 2007, petitioner decided to lease the said house and lot to derive income. While sometime in August of the same year, the relatives of the respondent demanded petitioners tenants to vacate the subject house and lot since respondent issued a Special Power of Attorney on July 31, 2007 in favor of his brother-in-law, a certain Peter Pan, authorizing the latter to manage the said property.

Peter Pan had since then taken over the management of the said property from the petitioner and entered into a Contract of Lease with a third party since September 2007, involving the subject premises, and kept the fruits to themselves.

Another fact can be construed with her interview ex gratia argumenti their veracity, which is that the respondent has not supported the petitioner and his daughter for more than five years.

ISSUES:

The following issues must be addressed in order to determine if the respondents case can hold water in the Court of Law:

1. Whether or not this case covered by summary proceedings under Article 253 of the Family Code.2. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as sole administrator of the subject property.3. Whether or not the court can annul the SPA issued by your client in favor of Peter Pan.4. Whether or not the court can annul the Contract of Lease entered into by Peter Pan and the unknown lessee.5. Whether or not the court can order the refund of rental fees in favor of the petitioner.6. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the recovery of possession over the subject property.

RULING & ANALYSIS:

For the first issue, this case may be covered by summary proceedings under Article 253 of the Family Code. Article 96 & 239 also applies, as stated:

Article 96: The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husbands 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.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. (206a)

Art. 239. When a husband and wife are separated in fact, or one has abandoned the other and one of them seeks judicial authorization for a transaction where the consent of the other spouse is required by law but such consent is withheld or cannot be obtained, a verified petition may be filed in court alleging the foregoing facts.The petition shall attach the proposed deed, if any, embodying the transaction, and, if none, shall describe in detail the said transaction and state the reason why the required consent thereto cannot be secured. In any case, the final deed duly executed by the parties shall be submitted to and approved by the court.(n)Using the facts and articles, this is a case of separation between husband and wife, with the husband working abroad to support his family. Summary proceedings apply since there is a clear-cut (undisputed) reason that the respondent stopped supporting the petitioner, which led for them to leave the conjugal property for it to become a source of income via renting and to have a cheaper place to maintain by staying in an apartment.For the second & third issue, the petitioner is not entitled to be the sole administrator of the property. Article 96 still subsists. As mentioned above, it is clearly stated in the law that the husbands decision shall prevail in case of disagreement between him and his wife. Furthermore, the SPA cannot be annulled on the grounds of Article 1881 of the husband delegating his rights to Peter Pan as an agent. Article 1881 is as follows: Article 1881. The agent must act within the scope of his authority. He may do such acts as may be conducive to the accomplishment of the purpose of the agency.Using both Article 96 and Article 1881, the respondent is within his rights to issue the SPA since him and Peter Pan were in a Principal Agent relationship, thereby granting Peter Pan a legal SPA to perform the respondents duties to manage the conjugal property. This is a defensible matter in case the petitioner will use the clause in Article 96 in which the respondent failed to obtain her permission in granting Peter Pan the right to manage the conjugal property.For the fourth issue, the respondent can claim that the action has prescribed since the contract between Peter Pan and respondent was completed sometime in June 2007, and the instant case is dated January 2013, which means that the time passed has been more than five years. That is beyond the limit as stated in Article 96, which the period of prescription must not exceed five years as provided by the family code. Moreover, the petitioner failed to establish that her consent was vitiated since the abovementioned article provides, However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. The action of her leaving their conjugal property and her failure to bring the case in the earliest time possible can already be construed as her acceptance of the contract as perfected by her husband.For the fifth issue, the court cannot order the refund of the rental fees in favor of the petitioner, although she may ask for the proceeds. Article 96 can be used again as legal basis for this matter, implying the validity of the SPA issued by the husband to Peter Pan and thereby relegating his right to collect the rental fees towards his agent. Petitioner may ask for the proceeds as part of her right towards the ownership of conjugal property.For the sixth issue, there can be recovery of the subject property in favor of the petitioner if the respondent so allows. Using article 96, the established facts of the case are still insufficient to prove her husbands abandonment in case she would argue her husbands delinquency towards his responsibilities as a family man. Therefore, she cannot immediately recover the property in dispute by using judicial declaration.CONCLUSION:At first glance, this case seems to be in favor of the petitioner and that the odds are stacked against the respondent. However, it is this legal researchers humble opinion that this case can hold water in the Court of Law by using the abovementioned articles and line of reasoning to defend the respondents cause.