Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City

Factual Background

The parties, Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez, contracted marriage on 05 January 1971 and begot five children. Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36, Family Code, dated 22 June 1992. After trial and joinder of issues, the trial court on 29 July 1994 declared the marriage null and void ab initio on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity and directed, among other things, that the parties start proceedings for liquidation of their common properties in accordance with Article 147, Family Code, and comply with Articles 50, 51 and 52, Family Code, within thirty days from notice of the decision. The trial court also addressed custody and visitation and allowed the three older children to choose which parent they would remain with.

Proceedings on Clarification and the Trial Court’s Order

Respondent Consuelo Gomez-Valdes sought clarification of the trial court’s directive concerning compliance with Articles 50, 51 and 52, Family Code, contending that those provisions govern liquidation in marital regimes and not in “unions without marriage.” During the hearing on the clarification the children submitted a joint affidavit stating their desire to remain with their father. In an order dated 05 May 1995, the trial court clarified that the parties’ properties, including the family home, were owned in equal shares under Article 147, Family Code, and that the rules on co-ownership under the Civil Code would apply to liquidation and partition, expressly excluding the application of Articles 50 and 129, Family Code, which govern liquidation of the absolute community and conjugal partnership.

Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the clarification order, urging that Articles 50, 51 and 52 in relation to Articles 102 and 129, Family Code should govern the disposition of the family dwelling in cases of marriages declared void ab initio for psychological incapacity. The trial court denied the motion on 30 October 1995. Petitioner then sought review in the Supreme Court asserting that Article 147 did not apply to cases of psychological incapacity, that the cited Family Code provisions should control, and that, alternatively, Article 147 could be read consistently with Article 129. He also urged that the court determine with which parent the majority of the children wished to remain.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The central legal question was whether the property relations and the procedure for liquidation and partition of the family dwelling in a marriage declared void ab initio for psychological incapacity are governed by Article 147, Family Code and the Civil Code rules on co-ownership, or whether the liquidation and partition rules in Articles 50, 51 and 52, in relation to Articles 102 and 129, Family Code, which pertain to absolute community and conjugal partnership, should apply.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Court affirmed the trial court’s orders dated 05 May 1995 and 30 October 1995. The Court held that in a void marriage, regardless of the cause of nullity, the property relations during cohabitation are governed by Article 147, Family Code, or Article 148, Family Code, as the case may be, which are modern formulations of the earlier Article 144 of the Civil Code and its judicial interpretation. The Court concluded that the co-ownership regime under Article 147 applies to property acquired by the parties during the period of their exclusive cohabitation as husband and wife under a void marriage and that liquidation and partition must follow the rules on co-ownership under the Civil Code rather than the procedures specific to conjugal partnership or absolute community.

Legal Basis: Article 147 and Its Operation

The Court explained that Article 147, Family Code provides that when capacitated persons live exclusively together as husband and wife without marriage or under a void marriage, wages and salaries and property acquired through their work are owned in equal shares and governed by the rules on co-ownership. The statute creates a prima facie presumption that properties acquired during cohabitation resulted from joint efforts and deems nonparticipatory contributions as joint when they consisted of household care and maintenance. Article 147 also expressly prohibits encumbrance or disposition inter vivos of a party’s share without the other’s consent during cohabitation and prescribes forfeiture of the bad faith party’s share in favor of common children upon termination of cohabitation or declaration of nullity.

Distinction from Conjugal Partnership and Absolute Community Rules

The Court distinguished the co-ownership regime from the conjugal partnership and absolute community regimes governed by Articles 102 and 129, Family Code, which prescribe specific liquidation procedures and special rules for adjudicating the conjugal dwelling upon dissolution of those regimes. The Court found the procedural rules in Articles 50, 51 and 52 to apply primarily to voidable marriages and, exceptionally, to void marriages under Article 40, Family Code, which addresses the narrow circumstance of invoking absolute nullity for purposes of remarriage only upon final judgment. The Court emphasized that it was not reasonable to assume the law intended to equate property relations of spouses in valid or voidable marriages with those of common-law spouses or spouses in void marriages, where the ordinary rules on co-ow