Tools

JURISPRUDENCE
○ ∠ (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/57811?s_params=Fqm2vfb21Leiyy16Bc6J)

18 (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/8494?s_params=Fqm2vfb21Leiyy16Bc6J)
$
(/jurisprudences/search?
19

%
citation_finder=&full_text=void+marriage&issue_no=&ponente=&syllabus=&title=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&year_end
20 (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/2991?s_params=Fqm2vfb21Leiyy16Bc6J)

∠ (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/2991?s_params=Fqm2vfb21Leiyy16Bc6J)
&
Cross Reference Cited In
'
Decision
655 PHIL 175-186
(

)
Search Matches
SECOND DIVISION
* +

[G.R. No. 178044. January 19, 2011.]

ALAIN M. DIÑO, petitioner, vs. MA.

CARIDAD L. DIÑO, respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO, J :
p

The Case
Before the Court is a petition for review 1
assailing the 18 October 2006 Decision 2 and the
12 March 2007 Order 3 of the Regional Trial Court
of Las Piñas City, Branch 254 (trial court) in Civil
Case No. LP-01-0149.
The Antecedent Facts
Alain M. Diño (petitioner) and Ma. Caridad L.
Diño (respondent) were childhood friends and
sweethearts. They started living together in 1984
until they decided to separate in 1994. In 1996,
petitioner and respondent decided to live together
again. On 14 January 1998, they were married
before Mayor Vergel Aguilar of Las Piñas City.
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 (/laws/23411).
Petitioner alleged that respondent failed in her
marital obligation to give love and support to him,
and had abandoned her responsibility to the family,
choosing instead to go on shopping sprees and
gallivanting with her friends that depleted the family
assets. Petitioner further alleged that respondent
was not faithful, and would at times become violent
and hurt him.
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.
On 30 April 2002, the Office of the Las Piñas
prosecutor found that there were no indicative facts
of collusion between the parties and the case was
set for trial on the merits.
ACcHIa

Dr. Nedy L. Tayag (Dr. Tayag), a clinical

psychologist, submitted a psychological report
establishing that respondent was suffering from
Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was deeply
ingrained in her system since her early formative
years. Dr. Tayag found that respondent's disorder
was long-lasting and by nature, incurable.
In its 18 October 2006 Decision, the trial
court granted the petition on the ground that
respondent was psychologically incapacited to
comply with the essential marital obligations at the
time of the celebration of the marriage.
The Decision of the Trial Court
The trial court ruled that based on the
evidence presented, petitioner was able to
establish respondent's psychological incapacity.
The trial court ruled that even without Dr. Tayag's
psychological report, the allegations in the
complaint, substantiated in the witness stand,
clearly made out a case of psychological incapacity
against respondent. The trial court found that
respondent committed acts which hurt and
embarrassed petitioner and the rest of the family,
and that respondent failed to observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity required of her under Article 68
of the Family Code (/laws/23411). The trial court
also ruled that respondent abandoned petitioner
when she obtained a divorce abroad and married
another man.
The dispositive portion of the trial court's
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring the marriage
between plaintiff ALAIN M.
DIÑO and defendant MA.
CARIDAD L. DIÑO on
January 14, 1998, and all its
effects under the law, as
NULL and VOID from the
beginning; and
 2. Dissolving the regime of
absolute community of
property.
A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall only be
issued upon compliance with Article[s] 50
and 51 of the Family Code (/laws/23411).
Let copies of this Decision be
furnished the parties, the Office of the
Solicitor General, Office of the City
Prosecutor, Las Piñas City and the Office
of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas
City, for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED. 4
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 (/laws/23411).
In its 12 March 2007 Order, the trial court
partially granted the motion and modified its 18
October 2006 Decision as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
1) Declaring the
marriage between plaintiff ALAIN
M. DIÑO and defendant MA.
CARIDAD L. DIÑO on January 14,
1998, and all its effects under the
law, as NULL and VOID from the
beginning; and
2) Dissolving the regime
of absolute community of property.
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 (/laws/23411). SHAcID
 Let copies of this Order be
furnished the parties, the Office of the
Solicitor General, the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Las Piñas City and the
Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, for
their information and guidance. 5
Hence, the petition before this Court.
The Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether 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 (/laws/23411).
The Ruling of this Court
The petition has merit.
Petitioner assails the ruling of the trial court
ordering 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
(/laws/23411). Petitioner argues that Section 19 (1)
of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages 6 (the Rule) does not apply to Article 147
of the Family Code (/laws/23411).
We agree with petitioner.
The Court has ruled in Valdes v. RTC,
Branch 102, Quezon City (/jurisprudences/13946)
that in a void marriage, regardless of its cause, the
property relations of the parties during the period of
cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or
Article 148 of the Family Code (/laws/23411). 7
Article 147 of the Family Code (/laws/23411)
applies to union of parties who are legally
capacitated and not barred by any impediment to
contract marriage, but whose marriage is
nonetheless void, 8 such as petitioner and
respondent in the case before the Court.
 Article 147 of the Family Code (/laws/23411)
provides:
Article 147. When a man and a
woman who are capacitated to marry each
other, live exclusively with each other as
husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or under a void marriage, their
wages and salaries shall be owned by
them in equal shares and the property
acquired by both of them through their
work or industry shall be governed by the
rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the
contrary, properties acquired while they
lived together shall be presumed to have
been obtained by their joint efforts, work
or industry, and shall be owned by them in
equal shares. For purposes of this Article,
a party who did not participate in the
acquisition by the other party of any
property shall be deemed to have
contributed jointly in the acquisition
thereof if the former's efforts consisted in
the care and maintenance of the family
and of the household.
Neither party can encumber or
dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her
share in the property acquired during
cohabitation and owned in common,
without the consent of the other, until after
the termination of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a
void marriage is in good faith, the share of
the party in bad faith in the co-ownership
shall be forfeited in favor of their common
children. In case of default of or waiver by
any or all of the common children or their
descendants, each vacant share shall
belong to the respective surviving
descendants. In the absence of
descendants, such share shall belong to
 the innocent party. In all cases, the
forfeiture shall take place upon termination
of the cohabitation.
For Article 147 of the Family Code
(/laws/23411) to apply, the following elements must
be present: AEIDTc

1. The man and the woman must be

capacitated to marry each other;
2. They live exclusively with each
other as husband and wife; and
3. Their union is without the benefit of
marriage, or their marriage is void.
9

All these elements are present in this case

and there is no question that Article 147 of the
Family Code (/laws/23411) applies to the property
relations between petitioner and respondent.
We agree with petitioner that the trial court
erred in ordering that a decree of absolute nullity of
marriage shall be issued only after liquidation,
partition and distribution of the parties' properties
under Article 147 of the Family Code
(/laws/23411). The ruling has no basis because
Section 19 (1) of the Rule does not apply to cases
governed under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family
Code (/laws/23411). Section 19 (1) of the Rule
provides:
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 (/laws/23411) as
implemented under the Rule on
Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of
Properties.
 The pertinent provisions of the Family Code
(/laws/23411) cited in Section 19 (1) of the Rule
are:
Article 50. The effects provided
for in paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of
Article 43 and in Article 44 shall also apply
in proper cases to marriages which are
declared void ab initio or annulled by final
judgment under Articles 40 and 45. 10
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 their
presumptive legitimes, unless such
matters had been adjudicated in previous
judicial proceedings.
All creditors of the spouses as well
as of the absolute community of 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.
Article 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 of 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 or 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.
It is clear from Article 50 of the Family Code
(/laws/23411) 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 and 45 of the Family Code
(/laws/23411). In short, Article 50 of the Family
Code (/laws/23411) does not apply to marriages
which are declared void ab initio under Article 36 of
the Family Code (/laws/23411), which should be
declared void without waiting for the liquidation of
the properties of the parties.
Article 40 of the Family Code (/laws/23411)
contemplates a situation where a second or
bigamous marriage was contracted. Under Article
40, "[t]he absolute nullity of a previous marriage
may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the
basis solely of a final judgment declaring such
previous marriage void." Thus we ruled: IcCEDA

. . . where the absolute nullity of a

previous marriage is sought to be invoked
for purposes of contracting a second
marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law,
for said projected marriage to be free from
legal infirmity, is a final judgment declaring
a previous marriage void. 11
Article 45 of the Family Code, on the other
hand, refers to voidable marriages, meaning,
marriages which are valid until they are set aside
by final judgment of a competent court in an action
for annulment. 12 In both instances under Articles
40 and 45, the marriages are governed either by
absolute community of property 13 or conjugal
partnership of gains 14 unless the parties agree to
a complete separation of property in a marriage
settlement entered into before the marriage. Since
the property relations of the parties is governed by
absolute community of property or conjugal
partnership of gains, there is a need to liquidate,
partition and distribute the properties before a
decree of annulment could be issued. That is not
the case for annulment of marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code (/laws/23411) because the
marriage is governed by the ordinary rules on co-
ownership.
In this case, petitioner's marriage to
respondent was declared void under Article 36 15
of the Family Code (/laws/23411) 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. In
Valdes, the Court ruled that the property relations
of parties in a void marriage during the period of
cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or
Article 148 of the Family Code (/laws/23411). 16
The rules on co-ownership apply and the
properties of the spouses should be liquidated in
accordance with the Civil Code (/laws/2602)
provisions on co-ownership. Under Article 496 of
the Civil Code (/laws/2602), "[p]artition may be
made by agreement between the parties or by
judicial proceedings. . . . ." 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 court's decision
without waiting for the liquidation, partition, and
distribution of the parties' properties under Article
147 of the Family Code (/laws/23411).
SO ORDERED.
Nachura, Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ.,
concur.

Footnotes
1. Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure (/laws/34655).
2. Rollo, pp. 28-34. Penned by Presiding Judge
Gloria Butay Aglugub.
3. Id. at 45-46.
4. Id. at 34.
5. Id. at 46.
6. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (/laws/32360),
effective 15 March 2003.
7. 328 Phil. 1289 (1996).
8. Mercado-Fehr v. Bruno Fehr
(/jurisprudences/7268), 460 Phil. 445 (2003).
9. Id.
10. Article 43. The termination of the
subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding
Article shall produce the following effects:
(1) The children of the subsequent marriage
conceived prior to its termination shall be
considered legitimate and their custody and
support in case of dispute shall be decided by
the court in a proper proceeding;
(2) The absolute community of property or the
conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall
be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse
contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her
share of the net profits of the community property
or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited
in favor of the common children or, if there are
none, the children of the guilty spouse by a
previous marriage or in default of children, the
innocent spouse;
(3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain
valid, except that if the donee contracted the
marriage in bad faith, such donations made to
said donee are revoked by operation of law;
(4) The innocent spouse may revoke the
designation of the other spouse who acted in bad
faith as a beneficiary in any insurance policy,
even if such designation be stipulated as
irrevocable; and
(5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent
marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to
inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and
intestate succession.
Article 40. The absolute nullity of a previous
marriage may be invoked for purposes of
remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment
declaring such previous marriage void.
Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of
the following causes, existing at the time of the
marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to
have the marriage annulled was eighteen years
of age or over but below twenty-one, and the
marriage was solemnized without the consent of
the parents, guardian or person having substitute
parental authority over the party, in that order,
unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such
party freely cohabited with the other and both
lived together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind,
unless such party after coming to reason, freely
cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained
by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full
knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud,
freely cohabited with the other as husband and
wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained
by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless
the same having disappeared or ceased, such
party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as
husband and wife;
 (5) That either party was physically incapable of
consummating the marriage with the other and
such incapacity continues and appears to be
incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually
transmissible disease found to be serious and
appears to be incurable.
11. Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño
(/jurisprudences/2991), 403 Phil. 861 (2001).
12. Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay
(/jurisprudences/12681), 360 Phil. 932 (1998).
13. Article 88 of the Family Code (/laws/23411).
14. Article 105 of the Family Code
(/laws/23411).
15. Article 36. A marriage contracted by any
party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after its solemnization.
16. Supra note 7.

∠ (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/57811?s_params=Fqm2vfb21Leiyy16Bc6J)

18 (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/8494?s_params=Fqm2vfb21Leiyy16Bc6J)

19

20 (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/2991?s_params=Fqm2vfb21Leiyy16Bc6J)

∠ (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/2991?s_params=Fqm2vfb21Leiyy16Bc6J)