Case Digest (G.R. No. 122749)
Facts:
In Antonio A. S. Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City and Consuelo M. Gomez-Valdes (G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996; 328 Phil. 1289, September 15, 1997), petitioner Antonio Valdes and respondent Consuelo Gomez-Valdes were married on January 5, 1971 and had five children. On June 22, 1992, Valdes filed in the RTC of Quezon City (Branch 102, Civil Case No. Q-92-12539) a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity. The trial court rendered judgment on July 29, 1994 declaring the marriage null and void ab initio, providing for custody and visitation of the children, and directing the parties to liquidate and partition their common properties in accordance with Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the Family Code. Consuelo Gomez-Valdes moved for clarification, contending that those provisions did not govern unions without marriage or marriages void ab initio. On May 5, 1995, the court clarCase Digest (G.R. No. 122749)
Facts:
- Marriage and Nullity Petition
- Antonio A. S. Valdes and Consuelo M. Gomez married on January 5, 1971 and had five children.
- On June 22, 1992, Valdes filed for declaration of nullity of the marriage under Article 36, Family Code, alleging mutual psychological incapacity.
- Trial Court Proceedings and Orders
- On July 29, 1994, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City, granted the petition:
- Declared the marriage null and void ab initio;
- Decided custody and visitation for the five children;
- Directed petitioners to liquidate common properties under Articles 50, 51, 52 and Article 147 of the Family Code within 30 days.
- Consuelo Gomez-Valdes moved for clarification, contending Articles 50–52 FC did not apply to void marriages.
- Clarification, Reconsideration and Appeal
- On May 5, 1995, the trial court clarified that:
- Properties acquired during cohabitation are presumed joint efforts under Article 147 FC;
- Liquidation and partition follow Civil Code co-ownership rules, not Articles 50–52 FC or Articles 102 and 129 FC.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on October 30, 1995, prompting elevation to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Does Article 147 of the Family Code govern property relations in a marriage declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity?
- Should Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the Family Code, in relation to Articles 102 and 129, control the disposition of the family dwelling in such a void marriage?
- If Article 147 applies, can it be read consistently with Article 129 FC?
- How should the court determine the parent with whom the majority of the children choose to stay regarding adjudication of the family dwelling?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)