Ponente: Vitug, J. (First Division)
Facts:
Antonio Valdez (petitioner) and Consuelo Gomez-Valdez (respondent) were married on January 5, 1971. They had five children. Antonio filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 102, Quezon City, declared the marriage null and void ab initio due to psychological incapacity of both parties. It ordered:
The three older children to choose which parent to live with.
The two younger children to be in the custody of the mother (Consuelo).
Disposition of properties: The family dwelling (conjugal property) was awarded to Consuelo, applying Article 147 of the Family Code (governing void marriages where parties acted in good faith).
Antonio appealed the property disposition portion, arguing that Articles 50, 51, and 52 (governing voidable marriages or those dissolved by death/annulment) should apply instead of Article 147, and that the family home should be partitioned or liquidated as conjugal property.
Issues:
Whether the RTC correctly applied Article 147 of the Family Code (property regime for void marriages) in disposing of the family dwelling and other properties, rather than the rules on conjugal partnership of gains (Articles 105–133) or those for voidable marriages (Articles 50–52).
The proper regime and disposition of properties in a marriage declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity under Article 36.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the RTC decision with modifications.
A marriage declared void ab initio under Article 36 (psychological incapacity) is treated as if it never existed. The property relations between the parties are governed by Article 147 of the Family Code (applicable to void marriages where at least one party acted in good faith), not by the rules on conjugal partnership of gains (which presume a valid marriage) or Articles 50–52 (which apply to voidable marriages or those dissolved by death/annulment).
Under Article 147:
Properties acquired by onerous title during the cohabitation are owned in common in proportion to contributions (monetary or otherwise).
If no proof of contributions, equal shares are presumed.
The family home is included in this regime unless excluded by law.
The RTC correctly applied Article 147. Since both parties were presumed in good faith (no bad faith shown), the family dwelling and other properties acquired during the "marriage" are co-owned. The award of the family home to Consuelo (with the children) was proper to protect the children's welfare, subject to liquidation and partition if necessary.
The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity renders the marriage void from the beginning; thus, no conjugal partnership exists. The decision clarified the distinction between void ab initio marriages (Article 36) and voidable ones, preventing application of annulment rules to nullity cases.
Custody and child support aspects were not disturbed, prioritizing the best interests of the children.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the family dwelling and other properties acquired during the cohabitation shall be governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, and the parties are directed to liquidate their common properties in accordance therewith. No costs. SO ORDERED.
This case is a foundational jurisprudence on the effects of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. It establishes that marriages void due to psychological incapacity follow the co-ownership regime of Article 147 (not conjugal partnership), and clarifies property disposition to avoid applying rules meant for valid or voidable marriages. It is frequently cited in nullity cases involving property regimes, family home awards, and child welfare considerations (e.g., later reinforced in De Castro v. De Castro and other Article 36 decisions).
No comments:
Post a Comment