View full case

GO v. ESTER L. SERVACIO

FACTS:

Jesus B. Gaviola sold two parcels of land to Protacio B. Go, Jr. (Protacio, Jr.) in 1976. In 1999, Protacio, Jr. executed an Affidavit of Renunciation and Waiver stating that his father, Protacio Go, Sr. (Protacio, Sr.), purchased the land. Marta Barola Go, the wife of Protacio, Sr., died in 1987. In 1999, Protacio, Sr. and his son Rito B. Go sold a portion of the land to Ester L. Servacio. The petitioners, who are the heirs of Protacio, Sr. and Marta, demanded the return of the property but Servacio refused. The petitioners filed a case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the annulment of the sale of the property, claiming that it was conjugal property and the sale was invalid due to the lack of prior liquidation. The RTC declared that the property was conjugal and affirmed the validity of the sale, stating that it was valid as long as it did not encroach upon the legitimate share of other heirs. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the sale was void due to the lack of prior liquidation.

ISSUES:

    • Whether the sale of a portion of the conjugal property without prior liquidation is void
    • Whether the sale prejudiced the rights of the heirs

RULING:

  1. The sale of a portion of the conjugal property without prior liquidation is not necessarily void if said portion has not yet been allocated by judicial or extrajudicial partition to another heir of the deceased spouse. The requirement of prior liquidation does not prejudice vested rights. The sale in this case is valid as long as the portion sold does not encroach upon the legitimate share of other heirs and is within the portion that will eventually be allotted to the vendors in the final partition of the property.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Upon termination of a marriage by death, the conjugal property must be liquidated and distributed in accordance with the provisions of the law.

  • The sale of a portion of the conjugal property without prior liquidation is not necessarily void if said portion has not yet been allocated to another heir.

  • The requirement of prior liquidation does not prejudice vested rights.