Persons and Family Relations

Selanova v. Mendoza

SATURNINO SELANOVA, complainant,

vs.
ALEJANDRO E. MENDOZA, City Judge of Mandaue City, respondent.
Challenges to marriage - by private contract
FACTS
1. Selanova charged Mendoza with gross ignorance of the law for extrajudicially
liquidating his conjugal partnership with his wife, Avelina Ceniza
2. Mendoza in his comment conveyed that he was aware the agreement was invalid
but nevertheless ratified it and gave his nihil obstat1 on the assurance of the
spouses that they would ask the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental to approve
the agreement
3. Mendoza relied on the provision that "the husband and the wife may agree upon the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the marriage, subject to judicial
approval" (Par. 4, Art. 191, Civil Code)
4. Mendoza argues that to give the prohibition against an extrajudicial liquidation of the
conjugal partnership during the marriage, "an unqualified and literal legal
construction", would render nugatory provisions of Article 191, citing Lacson vs. San
Jose-Lacson.
5. However, SC ruling in the Lacson case is that judicial sanction for the dissolution of
the conjugal partnership during the marriage should be "secured beforehand."
6. Mendoza admitted responsibility for the execution of the questioned document, an
extrajudicial "Liquidation of Conjugal Properties", which he had the spouses sign.

ISSUE
● W/N the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval
is valid

HELD: NO, the dissolution is VOID.

1. Judicial approval for the dissolution should be secured beforehand.
2. Their agreement is void. Per Art. 221 (Civil Code), the following are void:
○ (1) Any contract for personal separation between husband and wife;
○ (2) Every extrajudicial agreement, during marriage, for the dissolution of
the conjugal partnership of gains or of the absolute community of property
between husband and wife.
3. In previous cases, notaries and lawyers were sanctioned for authorizing contracts
that contravened Art. 221 wherein spouses were permitted to commit adultery and
concubinage since these are crimes, contrary to “law, morals, and public order, and
as a consequence are not judicially recognizable.”
○ E.g. Panganiban v. Borromeo - Lawyer was censured for preparing a
document allowing the husband to have a concubine and the wife to have an
adulterous relationship.
4. Mendoza is sanctioned with severe censure for authorizing the illegal document.
Penalty was lessened due to belief that he acted in good faith.

1
Nihil obstat - declaration of no objection, i.e. the act is valid and conforming with laws

Abenojar, Ablaza A2022