Does the fixture rule apply to a husband who uses the community to improve his own separate real property?

In Provost v. Provost, 102 Cal.App. 775, 781, 283 P. 842, 844, the husband used the community to improve his own separate real property. The court realized that where the husband improved his own separate land 'consent cannot be presumed from the wife's mere silence, for the law has given her no right to say 'no'.' With regard to the other rationale in support of not tracing--the fixture rule--the court noted that the merger doctrine would result in at least a constructive fraud and 'permit the authority of the husband in controlling the community property, given him in the interest of greater freedom in its use and for its transfer for the benefit of both himself and his wife, to become a weapon to be used by him to rob her of every vestige of interest in the community property with which the law has expressly invested her.'