G.R. No. 122749 – July 31, 1996
THESIS STATEMENT
Marriage of Antonio Valdez and respondent Consuelo Gomez-Valdez was declared null and void on the grounds of Psychological Incapacity, but the petitioner questioned the ruling of the trial court that their COMMON PROPERTIES be LIQUIDATED as defined by Article 147 of the Family Code, 50, 51, and 52.
The RELIEFS sought by Valdez are
FACTS
- Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married on 05 January 1971.
- Begot 5 children
- Valdez sought the declaration of nullity of the marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family code Psychological Incapacity
RTC Ruling in Question:
3) The petitioner and the respondent are directed to start proceedings on the liquidation of their common properties as defined by Article 147 of the Family Code, and to comply with the provisions of Articles 50, 51, and 52 of the same code, within thirty (30) days from notice of this decision.
| PLAINTIFF VALDES argues/alleges: | DEFENDANT CONSUELO defends/avers |
| Article 147 of the Family Code does not apply to cases where the parties are psychologically incapacitated or VOID AB INITIOArticles 50, 51 and 52 in relation to Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code govern the disposition of the family dwelling in cases where a marriage is declared void ab initio, including a marriage declared void by reason of the psychological incapacity of the spouses, not Art 147 and 148.no provisions on the procedure for the liquidation of common property in “unions without marriage.”The liquidation only applies to the reapparance of absent spouse, not void ab initio | Rules of co-ownership (Art 147) apply to marriages null and void ab initio |
Article 50: The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children – only for MARRIED
FC Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Properties owned by both shall be ruled by co-ownership or pro indiviso – undivided, joint tenancy or coparcenary
THE RTC RULED:
- 05 May 1995, Under article 147 of the Family Code, plaintiff and defendant will own their “family home” and all their properties for that matter in equal shares or be governed by rules of co-ownership
- Article 102 refers to the procedure for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership property
- Article 129 refers to the procedure for the liquidation of the absolute community of property.
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the order. The motion was denied on 30 October 1995.
Who filed to SC: Valdes
ISSUE
Whether or not Articles 50, 51 and 52, in relation to Articles 102 and 129, 12 of the Family Code prevails over marriage VOID AB INITIO. No.
Specified Issues by SC:
- Does Art 147 apply to void marriages by P.I.?
No. Not Articles 50,51,52, but Article 147 of the Civil Code prevails on marriages VOID AB INITIO. RTC Judge was correct.
The SUPREME COURT, penned by Justice Vitug, AFFIRMED The trial court correctly applied the law.
- Regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148
- In the liquidation and partition of the property owned in common by them, the provisions on co-ownership under the Civil Code Art 147 (Property Regime of Unions Without Marriage), not Articles 50, 51 and 52, in relation to Articles 102 and 129, 12 of the Family Code, should aptly prevail.
- The term “capacitated” in the provision (in the first paragraph of the law) refers to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage
- Property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership.
- The RTC did not commit an error in ruling that petitioner and private respondent own the “family home” and all their common property in equal shares
For VOID, 147 (without impediments) and 148 (with impediments)
Unlike in ACP, the family home is divided between the spouses.
English