1. APPEAL AND ERROR; INQUIRY BY SUPREME COURT INTO CONCLUSION OF FACT MADE BY COURT OF APPEALS. — The Court of Appeals found that no deceit had been committed by appellee upon appellants. This conclusion of fact is drawn from certain facts which are either undisputed of have been clearly established by the evidence. When may the Supreme Court review or question such deduction of fact based on uncotroverted or plain evidence? Only when reasonable men readily agree that the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible. If, however, fairminded men may differ on whether or not the main conclusion of fact is rightly drawn from the undisputed evidence, the Supreme Court should not, as a rule, inquire into the discretion exercised by the Court of Appeals. The instant case is of the latter category, because the findings of the Court of Appeals that there has been no deceit may or may not be persuasive, according to one's own reasoning after reading the decision and resolution of that court. It cannot be said that fair-minded men will not differ in this case on the existence of fraud. Held: That the Supreme Court cannot examine the question of whether or not the Court of Appeals was right when that tribunal concluded from the uncontroverted evidence that there had been deceit.
2. CONFIRMATION, RATIFICATION AND RECOGNITION DISTINGUISHED; AUTHORITY OF WIFE TO SELL PROPERTY OF THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP. — A careful analysis of Exhibit I reveals that the same is neither a confirmation nor a ratification of the sale made by the wife, but is what Spanish jurists call a "reconocimiento" or recognition. Confirmation tends to cure a vice of nullity, and ratification is for the purpose of giving authority to a person who previously acted in the name of another without authority. Recognition, on the other hand, is merely to cure a defect of proof. In recognition, there is no vice to be remedied, such as fraud, violence or mistake, as the case is distinguished from confirmation. In recognition, the person acting on behalf of another is duly authorized to do so, so the situation is different from ratification. The instant case is one of recognition because the husband was not trying to cleanse the sales of all taint, such as fraud, violence or mistake, nor was it his purpose to confer authority to his wife, because he stated in Exhibit I: "when my wife sold said lands to J. L. she did so with my knowledge and consent. Thus the requirement in the statute of frauds that in a sale of real property the authority of the agent should be in writing, has been complied with. Therefore, she was only acting as his agent.
3. ID.; ID.; ILLEGALITY OF PARTITION BETWEEN SPOUSES MADE DURING MARRIAGE. — However, as such agent, the wife could not sell her portions of those lands in the name of her husband, because the partition was illegal and void, as it was made during the marriage and there was no judicial order authorizing separation of property between the husband and the wife (art. 1432, Civil Code). Consequently, the character of these portions of lands as conjugal partnership assests. And the wife may bind the conjugal partnership with the consent of the husband, according to article 1614 of the Civil Code.
4. ID.; ID.; MISTAKE OF LAW DOES NOT RENDER CONTRACT VOIDABLE. — Mistake of law does not make a contract voidable, because ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from its compliance (art. 2, Civil Code; 8 Manresa, 646, 2d ed.). That the petitioners did not know the prohibition against partition of the conjugal partnership property during marriage (art. 1432, Civil Code) is no valid reason why they should ask for the annulment of the sales made Exhibits C and D and recognized in Exhibit I.
5. ID.; ID.; NO MAN CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS WRONG. — Moreover, there is the time-honored legal maxim that no man can take advantage of his own wrong. To repudiate the sales in question, petitioners are setting up their own wrongful act of partitioning their conjugal property, which violated article 1432 of the Civil Code. The prohibition in said article affects public policy, as it is designed to protect creditors of the conjugal partnership and other third persons. Petitioners shall not, therefore, be allowed thus to rest their cause of action to recover the lands sold, upon the illegality of the partition which they attempted to make. Otherwise, they would profit by their own unlawful act.
6. ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 1248 OF THE CIVIL CODE. — Finally, the contracts of the sale in Exhibits C and D and the deed of recognition Exhibit I are susceptible of two interpretations, one of which leads to their invalidity and legality, and the other to their validity and legality. The former construction is that these contracts refer to the separate property of the wife as a result of the partition, and the latter interpretation is that these deeds have as their subject matter the conjugal partnership property. This latter interpretation is not only proper as already indicated but is also warranted by the rules of interpretation of contracts. This construction is, therefore, adopted, which recognizes the binding character of these three deeds. The Civil Code in article 1284 provides: "If some clause of contracts admits of various meanings, is should be understood as that which is most adequate to make it effective."
PETITION for review on certiorari.lawphil.net
