Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Dino Vs Dino (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    The petitioner filed for annulment of his marriage to the respondent, citing psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the annulment but ordered that the decree would only be issued after liquidating and distributing the couple's common properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The petitioner appealed, arguing that liquidation was not necessary. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred because Section 19(1) of the annulment rules, which requires liquidation, only applies to marriages annulled under Articles 40 and 45, not Article 36 as in this case. The decree of nullity should be issued upon finality of the decision without waiting for liquidation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dino Vs Dino (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    3K views2 pages
    The petitioner filed for annulment of his marriage to the respondent, citing psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the annulment but ordered that the decree would only be issued after liquidating and distributing the couple's common properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The petitioner appealed, arguing that liquidation was not necessary. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred because Section 19(1) of the annulment rules, which requires liquidation, only applies to marriages annulled under Articles 40 and 45, not Article 36 as in this case. The decree of nullity should be issued upon finality of the decision without waiting for liquidation.

    Original Description:

    Dino vs Dino [Digest]

    Original Title

    Dino vs Dino [Digest]

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed for annulment of his marriage to the respondent, citing psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the annulment but ordered that the decree would only be issued after liquidating and distributing the couple's common properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The petitioner appealed, arguing that liquidation was not necessary. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred because Section 19(1) of the annulment rules, which requires liquidation, only applies to marriages annulled under Articles 40 and 45, not Article 36 as in this case. The decree of nullity should be issued upon finality of the decision without waiting for liquidation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views2 pages

    Dino Vs Dino (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    The petitioner filed for annulment of his marriage to the respondent, citing psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the annulment but ordered that the decree would only be issued after liquidating and distributing the couple's common properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The petitioner appealed, arguing that liquidation was not necessary. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred because Section 19(1) of the annulment rules, which requires liquidation, only applies to marriages annulled under Articles 40 and 45, not Article 36 as in this case. The decree of nullity should be issued upon finality of the decision without waiting for liquidation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LAIN M. DIO , Petitioner, - versus MA. CARIDAD L. DIO, Respondent.

    G.R. No. 178044

    Promulgated: January 19, 2011

    CARPIO, J.: FACTS: On 14 January 1998, Petitioner and Respondent were married. On 30 May 2001, petitioner filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against respondent, citing psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Extrajudicial service of summons was effected upon respondent who, at the time of the filing of the petition, was already living in the United States of America. Despite receipt of the summons, respondent did not file an answer to the petition within the reglementary period. Petitioner later learned that respondent filed a petition for divorce/dissolution of her marriage with petitioner, which was granted by the Superior Court of California on 25 May 2001. Petitioner also learned that on 5 October 2001, respondent married a certain Manuel V. Alcantara. Trial court granted petition for declaration of Nullity and dissolved the regime of absolute community of property. Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the dissolution of the absolute community of property and the ruling that the decree of annulment shall only be issued upon compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code. Trial court partially granted the motion. [ORIGINAL RULING: A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall only be issued upon compliance with Article[s] 50 and 51 of the Family Code. NEW ONE: A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall be issued after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.] Petitioner assails the (new) ruling as well arguing that Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (the Rule) does not apply to Article 147 of the Family Code. ISSUE: WoN the trial court erred when it ordered that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties properties under Article 147 of the Family Code HELD: YES (they erred). Sec 19 (1) of the Rule does not apply. It is clear from Article 50 of the Family Code that Section 19(1) of the Rule applies only to marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 (bigamous) and 45 (voidable) of the Family Code. In this case, petitioners marriage to respondent was declared void under Art 36 of the Family Code and not under Article 40 or 45. Thus, what governs the liquidation of properties owned in common by petitioner

    and respondent are the rules on co-ownership. It is not necessary to liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for declaration of nullity of marriage. WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the trial court with the MODIFICATION that the decree of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be issued upon finality of the trial courts decision without waiting for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

    NOTES (pertinent provision): Sec. 19. Decision. - (1) If the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties. FC, Art. 50. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which are declared ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45. The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of third presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation. In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129. FC, Art. 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters. The children or their guardian or the trustee of their property may ask for the enforcement of the judgment. The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either of both of the parents; but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime. (n)

    You might also like