G.R. No. 178044 - Dino vs. Dino

Case Summary (G.R. No. 178044)

Factual Background

Alain M. Dino and Ma. Caridad L. Dino were childhood friends who cohabited from 1984, separated in 1994, resumed cohabitation in 1996, and married on January 14, 1998, before the Mayor of Las Piñas City. They ceased living together and petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on May 30, 2001, alleging respondent’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, failure to render marital obligations, unfaithfulness, violent conduct, and conduct depleting family assets. Summons was served extrajudicially while respondent was residing in the United States, and she did not file an answer within the reglementary period. Petitioner later learned that respondent obtained a foreign divorce and remarried.

Evidentiary Development

The Office of the Las Piñas prosecutor found no indicia of collusion and the case proceeded to trial on the merits. Petitioner presented testimony and a psychological report by Dr. Nedy L. Tayag diagnosing respondent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, described as longstanding and incurable, which the trial court received as evidence of psychological incapacity.

Trial Court Decision

On October 18, 2006, the trial court granted the petition for declaration of nullity on the ground that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations at the time of marriage. The trial court found, based on the complaint and witness testimony, that respondent committed acts that embarrassed and hurt petitioner, failed to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and had abandoned petitioner by obtaining a foreign divorce and contracting a subsequent marriage. The trial court declared the marriage null and void ab initio and dissolved the regime of absolute community of property.

Trial Court Order on Reconsideration

Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration challenging the trial court’s order dissolving the absolute community of property and its direction that a decree of absolute nullity shall be issued only upon compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code. By Order dated March 12, 2007, the trial court partially granted the motion and modified its judgment to declare the marriage null and void and to dissolve the regime of absolute community of property, but ordered that a decree of absolute nullity shall be issued only after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

Issue Presented

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court erred in directing that the decree of absolute nullity of marriage be issued only after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

Petitioner’s Contention

Petitioner contended that Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity and Annulment does not apply to cases governed by Article 147. Petitioner argued that the trial court had no basis to delay issuance of the decree of absolute nullity pending liquidation, partition and distribution of properties under Article 147.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court found merit in the petition. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity but modified the trial court’s directive. The Court ordered that the decree of absolute nullity shall be issued upon finality of the trial court’s decision without waiting for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied its prior teaching in Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City that property relations of parties in a void marriage during cohabitation are governed by either Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code. The Court explained that Article 147 applies where the parties were capacitated to marry and lived exclusively as husband and wife, but the marriage was void — the factual posture of this case under Article 36. The Court construed Section 19(1) of the Rule, which required issuance of a decree of absolute nullity or annulment only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code. The Court held that Article 50 refers specifically to marriages declared void ab initio or annulled under Article 40 and Article 45, and that Section 19(1) therefore applies only to those categories of cases where the property relations are governed by absolute community of property or conjugal partnership of gains. The Court distinguished annulment or voiding under Articles 40 and 45, which implicate the dissolution and liquidation of conjugal properties before issuance of a decree, from annulity under Article 36, where pr

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 178044)

Parties and Procedural Posture

ALAIN M. DINO, PETITIONER filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on 30 May 2001.
MA. CARIDAD L. DINO, RESPONDENT received extrajudicial service because she was then residing in the United States and did not file an answer within the reglementary period.
The Office of the Las Piñas prosecutor found no indicative facts of collusion and the case was set for trial on the merits.
The Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 254, rendered a decision on 18 October 2006 granting the petition for nullity and dissolving the regime of absolute community of property.
The trial court issued an order on 12 March 2007 modifying its decision in respect of the timing for issuing the decree of absolute nullity.
The petitioner sought review of the trial court's order by filing a petition under Rule 45, Rules of Court.

Key Factual Allegations

The parties cohabited from 1984 until their separation in 1994, resumed living together in 1996, and were married on 14 January 1998.
The petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to give love and support, depleted family assets through shopping sprees, was unfaithful, and at times was violent toward him.
The respondent secured a divorce in the Superior Court of California on 25 May 2001 and married another man on 5 October 2001.
A clinical psychologist, Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, submitted a report diagnosing the respondent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder that was long-lasting and incurable.

Trial Court Decision

The trial court found that the petitioner proved the respondent's psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations and granted the petition for declaration of nullity.
The trial court held that the allegations in the complaint, corroborated by testimony, established psychological incapacity even apart from Dr. Tayag's report.
The trial court found that the respondent's acts embarrassed and hurt the petitioner and that she failed to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity required under Article 68 of the Family Code.
The trial court initially ordered that the decree of absolute nullity would be issued only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code.
The trial court declared the marriage null and void ab initio and dissolved the regime of absolute community of property.

Reconsideration Order

The petitioner moved for partial reconsideration challenging the trial court's dissolution of the absolute community and the requirement to comply with Articles 50 and 51 prior to issuance of the decree.
The trial court partially granted the motion and modified its decision to state that a decree of absolute nullity shall be issued after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties' properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.
The trial court thus retained a condition that the decree would follow liquidation and distribution proceedings.

Issue

The sole issue presented to the Court was whether the trial court erred in ordering that the decree of absolute nullity sha