Case Summary (G.R. No. 122749)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- Marriage: 5 January 1971.
- Nullity petition filed by petitioner: 22 June 1992 (R.T.C., Quezon City, Branch 102, Civil Case No. Q-92-12539).
- Trial court judgment granting nullity: 29 July 1994.
- Trial court clarification/order regarding property regime and co-ownership: 5 May 1995.
- Denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the clarification: 30 October 1995.
- Supreme Court review raised purely a question of law contesting the trial court’s application of the correct property regime to the family dwelling.
Facts
Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez were married in 1971 and had five children. Valdes filed a petition to declare the marriage null on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The trial court granted the petition, declared the marriage null and void ab initio for mutual psychological incapacity, resolved custody and visitation matters, and directed the parties to proceed with liquidation of common properties and to comply with Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the Family Code.
Trial Court Clarification and Ruling on Property Regime
Respondent Consuelo sought clarification as to whether Articles 50–52 of the Family Code govern liquidation in a union without marriage or a void marriage declared for psychological incapacity. The trial court, by its 5 May 1995 order, clarified that Article 147 of the Family Code controls: properties acquired during the cohabitation are presumed jointly acquired and owned in equal shares and the rules on co-ownership under the Civil Code apply to liquidation and partition. The court explicitly ruled Articles 102 and 129 (procedures for liquidation of absolute community and conjugal partnership) did not apply because those regimes govern valid marriages (absolute community or conjugal partnership) and voidable marriages pending annulment.
Petitioner’s Arguments on Appeal
Petitioner contended that: (I) Article 147 does not apply to marriages declared void for psychological incapacity; (II) Articles 50, 51 and 52 in relation to Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code should govern disposition of the family dwelling when a marriage is declared void ab initio for psychological incapacity; (III) if Article 147 applies it should be read consistently with Article 129; and (IV) the parent with whom the majority of the children wish to stay must be determined.
Legal Framework Applied by the Court
- Article 147 (Family Code) addresses property relations when a man and woman capable of marrying live together as husband and wife without marriage or under a void marriage: wages and salaries are owned in equal shares; property acquired through their work or industry is governed by rules on co-ownership; properties acquired while living together are presumed jointly obtained; contribution by household care counts as joint contribution; neither party may encumber or dispose of his/her share inter vivos without consent during cohabitation; and the share of the party in bad faith in a void marriage may be forfeited in favor of common children (with stated rules for default).
- Articles 50–52 of the Family Code incorporate some effects of Article 43 for certain void or annulled marriages and provide procedural directions where they apply; Articles 102 and 129 prescribe liquidation/partition procedures for absolute community and conjugal partnership respectively.
- Article 147 is a legislative clarification (a “remake” of Civil Code Art. 144) and establishes a distinct co-ownership regime for couples living as spouses in the absence of a valid marriage or under a void marriage.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
- The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly applied Article 147. In a void marriage (regardless of the ground for nullity, including psychological incapacity), the property relations during cohabitation are governed by Article 147 (or Article 148 where applicable), not by the liquidation rules applicable to valid marriages or to voidable marriages prior to annulment. Article 147 establishes a peculiar form of co-ownership distinct from the conjugal partnership or absolute community regimes; it presumes joint acquisition and subjects disposition to co-ownership rules.
- The Court explained that Articles 50, 51 and 52, insofar as they apply to liquidation and partition procedures, relate expressly to voidable marriages and exceptionally to specific situations under Article 40; they do not generally govern the co-ownership regime created by Article 147 for unions without marriage or void marriages. The legislative scheme does not contemplate equating the property relations of spouses in valid or voidable marriages with those of common-law spouses or spouses in a void marriage; rather, Article 147 (and Article 148) govern the latter, with ordinary co-ownership rules applicable to liquidation and partition.
- The Court further noted that a court empowered to declare a m
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 122749)
Facts
- Antonio A. S. Valdes and Consuelo M. Gomez were married on 05 January 1971 and begot five children during the marriage.
- On 22 June 1992, petitioner Antonio Valdes filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code (docketed Civil Case No. Q-92-12539, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 102).
- The petition alleged psychological incapacity of one or both parties; the parties proceeded to a joinder of issues and hearings before the trial court (Hon. Perlita Tria Tirona, presiding).
Trial Court Decision (29 July 1994)
- The trial court granted the petition and rendered judgment declaring the marriage of Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez-Valdes null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of their mutual psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations.
- Custody and visitation orders:
- The three older children, Carlos Enrique III, Antonio Quintin and Angela Rosario, were given the option to choose which parent they would want to stay with.
- Stella Eloisa and Joaquin Pedro were placed in the custody of their mother, respondent Consuelo Gomez-Valdes.
- Both petitioner and respondent were granted visitation rights over children in the custody of the other.
- Property-related directions:
- The petitioner and respondent were directed to start proceedings on the liquidation of their common properties as defined by Article 147 of the Family Code, and to comply with the provisions of Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the Family Code, within thirty (30) days from notice of the decision.
- The decision was to be furnished to the Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, for recording in the registry of marriages.
Motion for Clarification and Children's Affidavit
- Respondent Consuelo Gomez sought clarification of the trial court’s direction regarding compliance with Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the Family Code, arguing that the Family Code contains no provisions on the procedure for liquidation of common property in "unions without marriage."
- During the hearing on the motion, the children filed a joint affidavit expressing their desire to remain with their father, Antonio Valdes.
Trial Court Clarification and Order (05 May 1995)
- The trial court clarified that Article 147 of the Family Code explicitly provides that property acquired by both parties during their union, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts and will be owned by them in equal shares.
- The trial court ordered that, in the liquidation and partition of properties owned in common by the parties, the provisions on co-ownership found in the Civil Code shall apply.
- The court specifically addressed the disposition of the family dwelling, ruling that because the marriage was declared null and void ab initio, Article 147 governed the property regime and the rules on co-ownership applied; Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code do not apply because they refer, respectively, to liquidation procedures for the absolute community of property and for the conjugal partnership.
Subsequent Motion and Appeal
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the trial court’s clarification/order; the motion was denied on 30 October 1995.
- Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 122749), advancing several contentions of law, summarized in his four-point argument:
- I: Article 147 of the Family Code does not apply to cases where the parties are psychologically incapacitated.
- II: Articles 50, 51 and 52 in relation to Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code govern the disposition of the family dwelling in cases where a marriage is declared void ab initio, including those declared void on account of psychological incapacity.
- III: Assuming Article 147 applies to marriages declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity, Article 147 may be read consistently with Article 129.
- IV: It is necessary to determine the parent with whom the majority of the children wish to stay.
Legal Background and Statutory Texts Referenced
- The Supreme Court noted the controlling statutory provisions and related rules as presented in the record:
- Article 36, Family Code — ground invoked in the petition (psychological incapacity) (petition under this Article docketed in trial court).
- Article 147, Family Code — reproduced and discussed at length in the decision; key textual points included:
- When a man and a woman capable of marrying live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries are owned in equal shares and property acquired by both through work or industry is governed by co-ownership rules.
- In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together are presumed obtained by joint efforts and owned in equal shares.
- Contribution by a party consisting in care and maintenance of the family and household is deemed joint contribution for purposes of acquisition.
- Neither party can encumber or dispose inter vivos of his or her share in co-ownership property without consent of the other until termination of cohabitation.
- When only one party to a void marriage is in good faith, the bad faith party’s share is forfeited in favor of common children; in default or waiver, vacant shares go to surviving descendants or, in abse