Case Summary (G.R. No. 195580)
Trial Court Decision and Findings
On October 18, 2006, the RTC declared the marriage void ab initio under Article 36, finding psychological incapacity present at solemnization. It noted Respondent’s abandonment by obtaining foreign divorce and remarriage. It dissolved the absolute community of property and ordered that a decree of nullity be issued only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code.
Order on Reconsideration
On March 12, 2007, the RTC modified its decision: it maintained annulment and dissolution of the property regime but specified that issuance of the nullity decree would follow liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties under Article 147, Family Code.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the RTC erred in deferring issuance of the decree of absolute nullity until after liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties under Article 147, Family Code.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Applicable Rule
Section 19(1) of the Rule mandates Articles 50 and 51 procedures only for marriages void or annulled under Articles 40 or 45 of the Family Code. Article 50 governs property effects and liquidation for bigamous or voidable marriages (Articles 40 and 45), which are subject to absolute community or conjugal partnership regimes.
Application of Article 147 of the Family Code
For void marriages under Article 36, parties’ property relations are governed by co-ownership rules of Article 147. Requirements are: capacity to marry, exclusive cohabitation, and void union. Here, all elements are met. Article 147 presumes equal ownership of property acquired during cohabitation and allows partition by agreement or judicial action (Civil Code, Article 496) separate from the nullity proceeding.
Distinction from Articles 40 and 45
Articles 40 and 45 address bigamous or voidable marriages requiring community-property liquidation prior to annu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 195580)
Antecedent Facts
- Petitioner Alain M. Diao and respondent Ma. Caridad L. Diao were childhood friends and sweethearts who first cohabited from 1984 until their separation in 1994, then reconciled in 1996.
- They solemnized their marriage on January 14, 1998, before Mayor Vergel Aguilar of Las Piñas City.
- On May 30, 2001, petitioner filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging respondent’s psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations.
- Specific allegations included respondent’s failure to give love and support, abandonment of family responsibilities in favor of shopping sprees, depletion of family assets, infidelity, and episodes of violence toward petitioner.
- Summons was served extrajudicially after respondent had relocated to the United States, where she did not answer within the reglementary period.
- Petitioner discovered that respondent obtained a California divorce on May 25, 2001, and remarried Manuel V. Alcantara on October 5, 2001.
- The Las Piñas City Prosecutor found no indicia of collusion and set the case for trial on the merits.
- Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, a clinical psychologist, submitted a report diagnosing respondent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, described as deeply ingrained, long-lasting, and incurable.
Trial Court Proceedings
- The Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 254, issued its Decision on October 18, 2006, and its Order on March 12, 2007, both penned by Presiding Judge Gloria Butay Aglugub.
- In its October 18, 2006 Decision, the trial court:
- Found petitioner had proven respondent’s psychological incapacity even without the psychological report, relying on complaint allegations and witness testimony.
- Held respondent’s conduct—hurting and embarrassing petitioner, failing mutual love, respect, and fidelity under Article 68 of the Family Code, and abandoning petitioner v