Case Digest (G.R. No. 155409)
Facts:
Virgilio Maquilan v. Dita Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 08, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Virgilio Maquilan and respondent Dita Maquilan are spouses who separated after petitioner discovered respondent's adulterous affair; respondent and her paramour were criminally convicted for adultery. Petitioner later filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage, dissolution and liquidation of conjugal partnership of gains (Civil Case No. 656, RTC, Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley), invoking psychological incapacity.During pretrial of Civil Case No. 656 the spouses executed a written Compromise Agreement (dated January 11, 2002) partially dividing conjugal properties: withdrawal and trust deposit for the common child, equal division of remaining bank deposits, allocation of the store and bodega, division of motorcycles, transfer of the passenger jeep to the plaintiff with a cash payment, and vesting the house and lot to the common child — the settlement was expressly “partial” and “without prejudice” to other conjugal assets. The RTC judge approved the Compromise Agreement in a Judgment on Compromise Agreement (erroneously dated January 2, 2002).
Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion dated January 15, 2002 seeking repudiation of the compromise and reconsideration of the RTC judgment on grounds that his prior counsel failed to advise him of its legal consequences; the RTC denied the motion in an Order dated January 21, 2002 and denied reconsideration in an Order dated February 7, 2002. Petitioner then filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), contending (inter alia) grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in upholding the compromise, in holding it was made during the cooling‑off period, in denying his motions, and in conducting proceedings without the appearance of the Solicitor General or the Provincial Prosecutor. The CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 69689) dismissed the petition on August 30, 2002 and affirmed the RTC judgment on compromise.
Petitioner sought review before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the CA decision and raising qu...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the absence of the Solicitor General or provincial prosecutor in the RTC proceedings nullify the Compromise Agreement and related orders?
- Can a spouse convicted of adultery be disqualified from sharing in the conjugal partnership of gains pending resolution of a petition for declaration of nullity?
- Is a Compromise Agreement between spouses that grants a share in conjugal property to a spouse convicted of adultery valid and enforceable?
- Does a conviction for adultery carry the accessory penalty of civil interdiction that deprives the convicted spouse of the right to manage or dispose of property?
- May a spouse repudiate a judicially approved Compromise Agreement on the ground that ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)