G.R. No. 213687 - Paterno vs. Paterno

Case Summary (G.R. No. 213687)

Procedural posture and reliefs sought

This petition for review on certiorari assails the CA Decision (October 31, 2013) and Resolution (July 31, 2014) which affirmed RTC orders (November 29, 2011 and February 27, 2012) granting partial distribution of respondent’s share in identified conjugal/co‑owned properties and increasing monthly support to P250,000.00. The Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition, reversed the CA decision and remanded the case to RTC Branch 136 for accounting, reception of evidence and proper determination of ownership, shares and support arrears.

Core facts

The parties were married on December 27, 1987 and lived together for about a decade. Petitioner left the family abode in June 1998. Petitioner filed for declaration of nullity of marriage on psychological incapacity grounds; Branch 144, RTC Makati declared the marriage void on March 11, 2005, finding both parties psychologically incapacitated. The nullity decision became final. Proceedings for liquidation, partition and delivery of children’s presumptive legitimes remained pending and were subsequently re‑raffled to Branch 136.

Properties and claims at issue

Respondent identified nine properties alleged to be co‑owned (as admitted by the parties): (1) Ayala Alabang house and lot; (2) Rockwell condominium; (3) Riviera Golf and Country Club membership; (4) shares in Little Gym; (5) shares in Mamita Realty; (6) Dodge Caravan; (7) paintings; (8) accent furniture; and (9) book collection. Petitioner contended that although some properties were acquired during the marriage, mortgage amortizations and other payments made after the de facto separation were from his exclusive funds, thus affecting co‑ownership claims.

Trial court’s orders under review

RTC Branch 136 granted respondent’s motion for partial distribution of her share in the conjugal partnership (ordering partial delivery upon bond) and increased monthly support to P250,000.00. The trial court treated the declared‑void conjugal partnership as having been converted into ordinary co‑ownership upon dissolution and presumed the listed properties to be conjugal in the absence of proof to the contrary. The court advanced respondent’s share to protect her and the children and raised support based on children’s needs and petitioner’s resources. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals and issues raised there

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which dismissed his petition and refused to entertain several of his contentions on the ground they were errors of judgment, not jurisdictional defects proper for certiorari. The CA reasoned the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion by resolving the partial distribution motion despite pendency of a related petition in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 180226), because the issues before the CA/RTC involved properties acquired during the parties’ cohabitation while the other petition involved properties allegedly acquired after de facto separation.

Issues presented to the Supreme Court

The petitioner advanced several contentions, including that (a) the CA decision failed to state facts and law clearly as required; (b) judicial courtesy required the RTC to defer proceedings pending the Supreme Court resolution of the related case; (c) the RTC orders were made in grave abuse of discretion and contrary to prevailing jurisprudence; (d) factual misapprehension affected the RTC’s rulings on property ownership and the increase in support; and (e) petitioner was denied due process when the RTC resolved motions without awaiting his reply.

Parties’ main arguments before the Supreme Court

Petitioner emphasized that Article 147’s presumption of equal shares applies only to properties acquired while spouses lived together; payments made after separation should be excluded from the co‑ownership presumption and determine shares. He argued the RTC improperly allowed partial distribution without first resolving ownership and contribution issues that allegedly were the subject of G.R. No. 180226. Petitioner also argued the RTC’s increase in support to P250,000 was unjustified because mutual support ceased upon finality of the nullity decree and two daughters had already attained majority by November 29, 2011, with the youngest likewise reaching majority by the time of the petition.

Respondent argued the CA and RTC correctly applied Article 147, that properties admitted as common in the petition for nullity are subject to partial distribution, and that judicial courtesy or deferral was unnecessary because the RTC was dealing only with properties admitted as common. Respondent also relied on the presumption of joint contribution—direct labor or care and maintenance of the household—to support equal sharing and opposed petitioner’s due process and delay arguments.

Governing legal provisions and precedent applied

The Court applied the Family Code (Article 147 on co‑ownership in void marriages or de‑facto unions; Article 198 on cessation of spousal mutual support upon final nullity) and noted retroactivity provisions. The Court relied on relevant jurisprudence interpreting Article 147 and its Civil Code predecessor (e.g., Barrido v. Nonato and prior decisions referenced in the Resolution of G.R. No. 180226 and other authorities).

Legal analysis: scope and effect of Article 147

The Court confirmed Article 147 governs property relations for parties capacitated to marry who lived together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without benefit of marriage. Article 147 establishes a rebuttable presumption that properties acquired while living together were obtained by joint efforts and are owned in equal shares; efforts in care and maintenance of the family are treated as contribution. The Court further observed Article 147 applies to marriages contracted before the Family Code took effect, as it is a remake of the Civil Code provision and its application does not impair vested rights.

Interpretation of the word "acquired" and its application to installment purchases

The Court construed "acquired" in Article 147 in its ordinary sense: a property purchased during cohabitation is deemed acquired even if paid by installments and not fully amortized at separation. Therefore, if a property was purchased during the period of cohabitation, the rebuttable presumption of joint acquisition arises. However, because the co‑ownership terminates upon separation, the Court explained that the equal‑sharing presumption in practice applies to the portion paid during the cohabitation period; payments or amortizations made after separation may be treated differently and can be the subject of proof to determine shares.

Application to Ayala Alabang and Rockwell properties and burden of proof

Applying these principles, the Court held Ayala Alabang and Rockwell properties—purchased while the parties cohabited—are prima facie co‑owned. The petitioner may rebut the presumption by proving that portions of the property or payments were not made from joint/co‑owned funds or were not the product of joint efforts. Conversely, respondent may establish contribution by salary, income, work or household care to secure proportionate shares. Because the factual evidence on contributions, payments and sources (e.g., whether amortizations were from common funds) remained unresolved, the Court remanded for full accounting and reception of evidence.

Ruling on the support order

On support, the Court applied Article 198 of the Family Code: mutual spousal support ceases upon finality of a void marriage; petitioner’s duty post‑finality is to support t

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 213687)

Case Caption, Court and Decision Information

Citation: 868 Phil. 206; 117 OG No. 33, 8412 (August 16, 2021).
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division.
G.R. No.: 213687.
Date of Supreme Court Decision: January 08, 2020.
Ponente: Justice Reyes, Jr., J.
Concurring Justices: Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Lazaro‑Javier; Lopez, J. on official leave.
Relief Sought: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated October 31, 2013 and Resolution dated July 31, 2014 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 124473 which affirmed RTC Branch 136 Orders dated November 29, 2011 and February 27, 2012 ordering partial delivery of respondent’s share in the conjugal partnership and increasing monthly support to P250,000.00.

Factual Background

Parties: Simon R. Paterno (petitioner) and Dina Marie Lomongo Paterno (respondent); married December 27, 1987.
Separation in fact: Petitioner left the family home in June 1998 after about ten years of cohabitation.
Nullity action: Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on June 9, 2000, on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity; Branch 144, RTC Makati granted declaration of nullity in Decision dated March 11, 2005, declaring both parties psychologically incapacitated; that Decision became final.
Liquidation/partition: Proceedings for liquidation, partition and distribution of common properties and delivery of children’s presumptive legitimes remained pending before Branch 144 and were later re‑raffled to Branch 136.
Children and custody: The parties have three daughters — Beatriz, Juliana and Margarita; custody and living arrangements changed over time (details relevant to support issues are recounted in the record and in the parties’ arguments).

Procedural History Prior to Supreme Court Review

September 26, 2006: Respondent sought issuance of subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to present petitioner as hostile witness to testify and produce documents on salaries and properties acquired from separation in fact until finality of nullity decision.
November 22, 2006: Branch 144 recalled the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum, ruling under Article 147 of the Family Code that salaries and wages earned after de facto separation (June 1998) are not co‑owned but belong solely to the earning spouse; trial court denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
August 28, 2007: Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed respondent’s certiorari petition challenging Branch 144’s recall of the subpoena; CA denied reconsideration October 22, 2007; respondent filed Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 180226.
May 6, 2009: Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion in Branch 144 seeking appraisal, partition and delivery of her share in purportedly admitted co‑owned properties, accounting, or appointment of receiver/administrator; sought partial distribution and other reliefs.
June 1, 2009: Petitioner opposed the Omnibus Motion, contesting characterization of the listed properties as co‑owned and arguing the trial court should defer proceedings pending resolution of G.R. No. 180226.
September 22, 2009: Respondent filed Manifestation and Urgent Motion to Resolve Omnibus Motion and for Additional Support/Establishment of Trust Fund.
November 29, 2011: RTC Branch 136 granted respondent’s motion for partial distribution of her share in the conjugal partnership despite the pending Supreme Court petition, ordered posting of P50,000.00 bond for advancement of share, and increased monthly support to P250,000.00 considering children’s needs and petitioner’s resources.
February 27, 2012: RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the CA by Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
October 31, 2013: CA Decision affirmed the RTC, holding RTC did not gravely abuse discretion in resolving the motion despite pendency of G.R. No. 180226 and rejecting claims of deprivation of due process; CA declined to rule on several other alleged errors as they were errors of judgment and not jurisdictional.
July 31, 2014: CA Resolution denying reconsideration of its Decision.
Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 213687).

Properties Alleged to be Co‑owned (As Listed by Respondent)

House and lot in Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City.
Condominium unit in Rockwell, Makati City.
Club membership at the Riviera Golf and Country Club.
Shares of stock in Little Gym.
Shares of stock in Mamita Realty.
Dodge Caravan.
Paintings by various known artists.
Pieces of accent furniture.
Collection of books by various known authors.

Reliefs and Orders of the Trial Court (RTC Branch 136)

Granted partial distribution of respondent’s share in the conjugal partnership for properties the parties admitted were co‑owned.
Ordered respondent’s share to be advanced upon the posting of P50,000.00 bond.
Increased monthly support payable by petitioner to respondent to P250,000.00, considering Juliana’s health and the children’s accustomed standard of living and petitioner’s financial resources.
Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on February 27, 2012.

Issues Raised by Petitioner (as Presented to the Supreme Court)

Whether the CA gravely erred in not setting aside the RTC Orders dated November 29, 2011 and February 27, 2012 which allegedly were issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction.
Whether the CA Decision failed to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it was based, in violation of the Constitutional requirement and petitioner’s right to due process.
Whether the CA erred in ruling that respondent’s pending petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 180226) did not necessitate judicial courtesy or deferral of RTC proceedings.
Whether the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in (a) ruling that the spouses’ property relation converted to ordinary co‑ownership after dissolution, (b) ruling petitioner claimed the subject properties exclusively, and (c) affirming the increase in support to P250,000.00 monthly.
Whether the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion when the trial court issued its February 27, 2012 Order without giving petitioner opportunity to fully argue his position or wait for his Reply to respondent’s Comment.

Principal Arguments of the Petitioner (as presented in the record)

CA Decision allegedly failed to comply with constitutional requirement to state facts and law clearly because it brushed aside petitioner’s last three arguments as mere errors of judgment rather than jurisdictional errors, thereby violating due process.
Trial court should have observed judicial courtesy and deferred ruling on respondent’s motion until after the Supreme Court’s resolution of G.R. No. 180226 because the core issue—whether payments (amortizations) made after de facto separation belong to co‑ownership—was being considered by the High Court.
Trial court gravely abused discretion by allowing partial distribution/partition without first determining co‑ownership status and division method as required by two‑tiered partition procedure; these questions were the subject of G.R. No. 180226.
The property regime for a marriage void ab initio is special co‑ownership from the outset; therefore, the trial court’s statement that conjugal partnership converted to ordinary co‑ownership upon declaration of nullity was legally erroneous.
Trial court misapprehended facts regarding petitioner’s contention about Ayala Alabang and Rockwell properties—petitioner never claimed exclusive ownership but argued that mortgage payments made from h