Ocampo Vs Ocampo GR 198908 FACTS: On September 10, 1990, Petitioner Virginia Sy

Ocampo vs Ocampo exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
GR 198908 3.) their union is without the benefit of marriage or

their marriage is void as in the instant case. The term
FACTS: On September 10, 1990, petitioner Virginia Sy “capacitated” in the
Ocampo (Virginia) filed a Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of her Marriage with Deogracio Ocampo st
(Deogracio) before Regional Trial Court of Quezon 1 paragraph of the provision pertains to the legal
City, Branch 87, on the ground of psychological capacity of a party to contract marriage.
incapacity. The decision became final, since no party
appealed the judgment annulling the marriage. On Both trial and appellate courts correctly held that the
March 31, 1999, the trial court directed the parties to parties will share on equal shares considering that
submit a project of partition of their inventoried Virginia failed to prove that the properties were
properties, and if they failed to do so, a hearing will acquired solely on her effort. While it may be true
be held on the factual issues with regard to said that management of the business may have been
properties. Having failed to agree on a project of actively undertaken by Virginia, it cannot be gainsaid
partition of their conjugal properties, hearing ensued that petitioner was able to do so without the
where the parties adduced evidence in support of invaluable help of respondent-husband. Even a plain
their respective stand. On January 13, 2004, the trial housewife who stays all the time in the house and
court rendered the assailed Order stating that the takes care of the household while the husband
properties declared by the parties belong to each one indulges in lucrative and gainful activities is entitled
of them on a 50-50 sharing. to a share in the same proportion as the husband is,
to the property/ies acquired by the marriage. In the
ISSUE: Whether respondent should be deprived of his same breadth, respondent must be considered to be
share in the conjugal partnership of gains by reason of entitled to the same extent. Petitioner’s claim that
bad faith and psychological perversity. the seed money in the business was provided by her
mother and that, had it not been for that reason, the
RULING properties now subject of the controversy could not
have been acquired. That may be true but the Court
The property relations between Virginia and is not prone to believe so because of insufficient
Deogracio is the conjugal partnership of gains having evidence to prove such contention based on
been married in 1978 but Article 108 of the Family petitioner’s self-serving allegations. Attempts to
Code explicitly mandates that the Code shall apply to establish Deogracio as an irresponsible and an
conjugal partnership of gains established before the unfaithful husband, as well as a family man were
Family Code without prejudice to vested rights made but the testimonies adduced towards that end,
already acquired under the Civil Code or other laws. failed to fully convince the Court that respondent
should be punished by depriving him of his share of
the conjugal property because of his indiscretion.
The applicable law, however, in so far as the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership assets and
liability is concerned, is Article 129 in relation to The certificates of titles and tax declarations are not
Article 147 of the Family Code. Article 147 of the FC sufficient proof to overcome the presumption under
applies to union of parties who were legally Article 116 of the FC. All properties acquired by the
capacitated and not barred by any impediment to spouses during their marriage, regardless in whose
contract marriage, but whose marriage is name the properties are registered, are presumed
nonetheless, void, as in this case. conjugal unless proved otherwise. The presumption is
not rebutted by the mere fact that the certificate of
title or the tax declaration is in the name of one of the
This particular kind of co-ownership applies when a
spouses only. Article 116, FC expressly provides that
man and a woman, suffering no legal impediment to
the presumption remains even if the property is
marry each other, exclusively live together as
“registered in the name of one or both of the
husband and wife under a void marriage or without
spouses”. Accordingly, the partition of the former
the benefit of marriage. It is clear, therefore, that for
spouses’ properties shall be based on co-ownership
Article 147, FC to operate, the man and woman: 1.)
and not on the regime of conjugal partnership of
must be capacitated to marry each other; 2.) live
gains.

Ocampo Vs Ocampo GR 198908 FACTS: On September 10, 1990, Petitioner Virginia Sy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocampo Vs Ocampo GR 198908 FACTS: On September 10, 1990, Petitioner Virginia Sy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocampo Vs Ocampo GR 198908 FACTS: On September 10, 1990, Petitioner Virginia Sy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocampo vs Ocampo exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and

GR 198908 3.) their union is without the benefit of marriage or

You might also like