Valdes v. RTC (1996)

Valdes v. RTC (1996)

July 31, 1996

Ponente: Justice Vitug

PARTIES:

- Petitioner: Antonio A.S. Valdes

- Respondents: RTC Branch 102 QC & Consuelo M. Gomez-Valdes

FACTS:

·       January 5, 1971 – Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Valdes married and had 5 children

·       June 22, 1992 – Valdes sought the declaration of nullity of the marriage (Art. 36 – Psychological Incapacity)

·       July 29, 1994 – RTC Branch 102 QC declared the marriage null and void under Art. 36 of the Family Code (mutual psychological incapacity to comply with their mutual marital obligations)

·       Directed to start proceedings on the liquidation of their common properties as defined by article 147 of the FC

·       Court: “in the absence of proof to the contrary, the property acquired by both parties during their union, in the absence of proof to the contrary, are presumed to have been obtained through the joint efforts of the parties and will be owned by them in equal shares, parties will own their “family home” and all their other properties for that matter in equal shares.”

·       Court ordered that their property regime of the parties shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

·       Antonio Valdes moved for reconsideration of the order, but was denied.

·       Valdes submits that Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the FC should be held controlling

ISSUE/S:

1.      W/N Article 147 of the FC applies to cases where parties are psychologically incapacitated

2.      W/N Articles 50, 51 and 52 in relation to Articles 102 and 129 of the FC govern the disposition of the family dwelling in cases where a marriage is declared void ab initio, including a marriage declared void by reason of PI (Art. 36)

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

1.      YES.  In a void marriage (regardless of cause) property relations of the parties during their cohabitation period is governed by the provisions of Art. 147 or 148

- Term “capacitated” in Art. 147 refers to legal capacity of a party to contract the marriage

2.      NO. The provisions on co-ownership under the Civil Code, NOT Articles 50, 51 and 52 in relation to Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code, shall prevail.

- Rules governing the liquidation of either the ACP or CPG for valid and voidable marriages are irrelevant to the liquidation of the co-ownership that exists between common-law spouses.

JUDGMENT:

- Questioned orders of the trial court are AFFIRMED.

- The trial court applied the law correctly.

- Trial court acted neither imprudently or precipitately.