[1] Strong Fort Warehousing Corp. v. Banta, G.R. Nos. 222369 & 222502, November 16, 2020, accessed at ; Spouses Anastacio, Sr. v. Heirs of Coloma, G.R. No. 224572, August 27, 2020, accessed at ; Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. Del Rosario, 821 Phil. 710 (2017); Philippine National Bank v. Reyes, Jr., 796 Phil. 736 (2016); Spouses Aggabao v. Spouses Parulan, Jr., 644 Phil. 26 (2010); Spouses Fuentes v. Roca, 633 Phil. 9 (2010); Titan Construction Corp. v. Spouses David, 629 Phil. 346 (2010); Spouses Alinas v. Spouses Alinas, 574 Phil. 311 (2008); Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Dailo, 493 Phil. 436 (2005); and Spouses Guiang v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 578 (1998). [2] Ponencia, p. 18. [3] G.R. No. 246445, March 2, 2021, accessed at . [4] FAMILY CODE, Art. 124 provides: ART. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for a 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 conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such 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as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.[5] ARTICLE 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning: (1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy; (2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious; (3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction; (4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men; (5) Those which contemplate an impossible service; (6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal object of the contract cannot be ascertained; (7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived. [6] ARTICLE 1410. The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. [7] Spouses Cueno v. Spouses Bautista, supra note 3. [8] Id. [9] Id. Citation omitted. [10] Id. [11] Ponencia, p. 12. [12] Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 260 Phil. 477, 486 (1990). [13] Susi v. Razon, 48 Phil. 424 (1925); see also 12 C.J., Sec. 485, p. 955 cited in Balboa v. Farrales, 51 Phil. 498, 502 (1928). [14] Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 556, 569 (2002). [15] 424 Phil. 933 (2002). [16] Id. at 940-942. [17] Id. at 935. [18] FAMILY CODE, Art. 96 provides: ART. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for a 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 the powers of disposition or encumbrance without the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such 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 offerers.[19] Arturo M. Tolentino, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES VOLUME ONE WITH THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, p. 461. [20] Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, HANDBOOK ON THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (1995), p. 216. [21] Ponencia, p. 18. [22] Supra note 1. [23] Id. [24] Minutes of the 175th Meeting of the Civil Code and Family Law Committees held on Saturday, 7 March 1987, 9:00 A.M., at the First Floor Conference Room of Bocobo Hall, U.P. Law Complex, Diliman, Quezon City, p. 28. [25] Ponencia, p. 21. [26] Id. [27] Id. at 2. [28] Id.