170ALAINM.DIO,Petitioner,vs.

MA.CARIDADL.DIO,Respondent.
[G.R.No.178044;January19,2011]
TOPIC:
E.Propertyregimeofunionswithoutmarriage
1. UnionsunderFC147,6,35,36,53
PONENTE:CARPIO,J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES:(ifapplicable)

FACTS:(chronologicalorder)
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

AlainM.Dio(petitioner)andMa.CaridadL.Dio(respondent)werechildhoodfriendsandsweethearts.Theystartedliving
togetheruntiltheydecidedtoseparat.Petitionerandrespondentdecidedtolivetogetheragain.Subsequently,theyweremarried
beforeMayorVergelAguilarofLasPiasCity.
PetitionerfiledanactionforDeclarationofNullityofMarriageagainstrespondent,citingpsychologicalincapacityunderArticle
36oftheFamilyCode.Petitionerallegedthatrespondentfailedinhermaritalobligationtogiveloveandsupporttohim,andhad
abandonedherresponsibilitytothefamily,choosinginsteadtogoonshoppingspreesandgallivantingwithherfriendsthat
depletedthefamilyassets.Petitionerfurtherallegedthatrespondentwasnotfaithful,andwouldattimesbecomeviolentandhurt
him.
Whilethepetitionwaspending,petitionerlaterlearnedthatrespondentfiledapetitionfordivorceandwasgrantedbytheSuperior
CourtofCaliforniaandthatshemarriedacertainManuelAlcantara.
TheOfficeoftheLasPiasprosecutorfoundthattherewerenoindicativefactsofcollusionbetweenthepartiesandthecasewas
setfortrialonthemerits.
Dr. Nedy L. Tayag (Dr. Tayag), a clinical psychologist, submitted a psychological report establishing that respondent was
sufferingfromNarcissisticPersonalityDisorderwhichwasdeeplyingrainedinhersystemsinceherearlyformativeyears.Dr.
Tayagfoundthatrespondentsdisorderwaslonglastingandbynature,incurable.
Inits18October2006Decision,thetrialcourtgrantedthepetitiononthegroundthatrespondentwaspsychologicallyincapacited
tocomplywiththeessentialmaritalobligationsatthetimeofthecelebrationofthemarriage.
The court ruled that A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall onlybe issued uponcompliance with
Article[s]50and51oftheFamilyCode.
Art.50.Theeffectsprovidedforbyparagraphs(2),(3),(4)and(5)ofArticle43andbyArticle44shallalsoapplyinthepropercasestomarriageswhichare
declaredabinitioorannulledbyfinaljudgmentunderArticles40and45.
Thefinaljudgmentinsuchcasesshallprovidefortheliquidation,partitionanddistributionofthepropertiesofthespouses,thecustodyandsupportofthe
commonchildren,andthedeliveryofthirdpresumptivelegitimes,unlesssuchmattershadbeenadjudicatedinpreviousjudicialproceedings.
Allcreditorsofthespousesaswellasoftheabsolutecommunityortheconjugalpartnershipshallbenotifiedoftheproceedingsforliquidation.
Inthepartition,theconjugaldwellingandthelotonwhichitissituated,shallbeadjudicatedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofArticles102and129.
Art.51.Insaidpartition,thevalueofthepresumptivelegitimesofallcommonchildren,computedasofthedateofthefinaljudgmentofthetrialcourt,shallbe
deliveredincash,propertyorsoundsecurities,unlesstheparties,bymutualagreementjudiciallyapproved,hadalreadyprovidedforsuchmatters.
Thechildrenortheirguardianorthetrusteeoftheirpropertymayaskfortheenforcementofthejudgment.
Thedeliveryofthepresumptivelegitimeshereinprescribedshallinnowayprejudicetheultimatesuccessionalrightsofthechildrenaccruinguponthedeathof
eitherofbothoftheparents;butthevalueofthepropertiesalreadyreceivedunderthedecreeofannulmentorabsolutenullityshallbeconsideredasadvanceson
theirlegitime.

8.

ItlateralteredittoADECREEOFABSOLUTENULLITYOFMARRIAGEshallbeissuedafterliquidation,partitionand
distributionofthepartiespropertiesunderArticle147oftheFamilyCode.
Art.147.Whenamanandawomanwhoarecapacitatedtomarryeachother,liveexclusivelywitheachotherashusbandandwifewithoutthebenefitofmarriage
orunderavoidmarriage,theirwagesandsalariesshallbeownedbytheminequalsharesandthepropertyacquiredbybothofthemthroughtheirworkor
industryshallbegovernedbytherulesoncoownership.
Intheabsenceofprooftothecontrary,propertiesacquiredwhiletheylivedtogethershallbepresumedtohavebeenobtainedbytheirjointefforts,workor
industry,andshallbeownedbytheminequalshares.ForpurposesofthisArticle,apartywhodidnotparticipateintheacquisitionbytheotherpartyofany
propertyshallbedeemedtohavecontributedjointlyintheacquisitionthereofiftheformer'seffortsconsistedinthecareandmaintenanceofthefamilyandofthe
household.
Neitherpartycanencumberordisposebyactsintervivosofhisorhershareinthepropertyacquiredduringcohabitationandownedincommon,withoutthe
consentoftheother,untilaftertheterminationoftheircohabitation.
Whenonlyoneofthepartiestoavoidmarriageisingoodfaith,theshareofthepartyinbadfaithinthecoownershipshallbeforfeitedinfavoroftheircommon
children.Incaseofdefaultoforwaiverbyanyorallofthecommonchildrenortheirdescendants,eachvacantshareshallbelongtotherespectivesurviving
descendants.Intheabsenceofdescendants,suchshareshallbelongtotheinnocentparty.Inallcases,theforfeitureshalltakeplaceuponterminationofthe
cohabitation.

ISSUE(S):Whetherornotadecreeofabsolutenullityofmarriageshallonlybeissuedafterliquidation,partition,anddistributionof
partiespropertiesunderArticle147oftheFamilyCode?
HELD:NO.

RATIO:
Thecourterred.TheCourthasruledinValdesv.RTC,Branch102,QuezonCitythatinavoidmarriage,regardlessofitscause,the
propertyrelationsofthepartiesduringtheperiodofcohabitationisgovernedeitherbyArticle147orArticle148oftheFamilyCode.7
Article147oftheFamilyCodeappliestounionofpartieswhoarelegallycapacitatedandnotbarredbyanyimpedimenttocontract
marriage,butwhosemarriageisnonethelessvoid,suchaspetitionerandrespondentinthecasebeforetheCourt.
ForArticle147oftheFamilyCodetoapply,thefollowingelementsmustbepresent:1.Themanandthewomanmustbecapacitatedto
marryeachother;2.Theyliveexclusivelywitheachotherashusbandandwife;and3.Theirunioniswithoutthebenefitofmarriage,or
theirmarriageisvoidAlltheseelementsarepresentinthiscaseandthereisnoquestionthatArticle147oftheFamilyCodeappliesto
thepropertyrelationsbetweenpetitionerandrespondent.
ItisclearfromArticle50oftheFamilyCodethatSection19(1)oftheRuleappliesonlytomarriageswhicharedeclaredvoidabinitio
orannulledbyfinaljudgmentunderArticles40and45oftheFamilyCode.Inshort,Article50oftheFamilyCodedoesnotapplyto
marriageswhicharedeclaredvoidabinitiounderArticle36oftheFamilyCode,whichshouldbedeclaredvoidwithoutwaitingforthe
liquidationofthepropertiesoftheparties.
Sincethepropertyrelationsofthepartiesinart40and45aregovernedbyabsolutecommunityofpropertyorconjugalpartnershipof
gains,thereisaneedtoliquidate,partitionanddistributethepropertiesbeforeadecreeofannulmentcouldbeissued.Thatisnotthe
caseforannulmentofmarriageunderArticle36oftheFamilyCodebecausethemarriageisgovernedbytheordinaryrulesonco
ownership.
Inthiscase,petitionersmarriagetorespondentwasdeclaredvoidunderArticle3615oftheFamilyCodeandnotunderArticle40or
45.Thus,whatgovernstheliquidationofpropertiesownedincommonbypetitionerandrespondentaretherulesoncoownership.In
Valdes,theCourtruledthatthepropertyrelationsofpartiesinavoidmarriageduringtheperiodofcohabitationisgovernedeitherby
Article147orArticle148oftheFamilyCode.Therulesoncoownershipapplyandthepropertiesofthespousesshouldbeliquidated
inaccordancewiththeCivilCodeprovisionsoncoownership.UnderArticle496oftheCivilCode,[p]artitionmaybemadeby
agreementbetweenthepartiesorbyjudicialproceedings.xxx.Itisnotnecessarytoliquidatethepropertiesofthespousesinthe
sameproceedingfordeclarationofnullityofmarriage.
CASELAW/DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRINGOPINION(S):