Valdez v. RTC QC

VALDEZ V.
RTC QUEZON CITY

July 31, 1996
Ponente: Vitug, J.
Topic: On the property regime of marriage
Facts:
Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married on January 5, 1971. On July 29,
1994 their marriage was declared null and void (psychological incapacity). Their 3 older
children chose to live with their father, while the younger 2 were assigned to live with their
mother. Court ordered liquidation of common properties defined by FC Art. 147, complying
with Art. 50, 51, 52.
Consuelo sought a clarification now that her marriage was null and void, how is it to
apply to the provision? She claims that the Family Code does not provide procedures regarding
unions without marriage. In response, RTC says that her nullified marriage is to be applied to
FC Art. 147 as a co-ownership, like with common law spouses.
Family Code, Art. 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. (144a)
Family Code, Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties
acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned
by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their
contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint
deposits of money and evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute
community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly
married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith. (144a)
Issue/s:
Decision:
Whether or not RTC acted in its capacity; decided correctly in applying Art. 147 to
case
RTC decision affirmed
Held
1. Art. 147, 148 apply to
properties in question
2. RTC did not err in ruling

3. Other clarifications
Ratio
Case at bar is governed by co-ownership just like with
common law spouses. Any property acquired during union is
presumed obtained jointly. Neither party can dispose of
share without consent. If one party acted in bad faith,
shares to his/her children.
Absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains applies
to valid and voidable marriages. Coincident property
relations not to be assumed before annulment.
Court with jurisdiction on nullity must be able to resolve
incidental/consequential matters as well
Present law aims to do away with continuing uncertainty of
status of 2nd marriage after nullification of 1 st. Art. 43, relates
to Art. 41, 42 on effects of termination of subsequent
marriage during a previous marriage.

Regardless of property regime, provisions on family home
in FC applies.

Valdez v. RTC QC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valdez v. RTC QC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Valdez v. RTC QC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VALDEZ V.

RTC QUEZON CITY

2. RTC did not err in ruling

marriage during a previous marriage.

You might also like