Diño vs. Diño

In a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the court must issue the Decree of Absolute Nullity immediately upon the finality of the decision; it is an error to withhold the decree pending the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties, as the requirement for prior liquidation under Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity applies strictly to marriages void under Articles 40 and 45.

The case originated from a broken marriage between childhood sweethearts who married in 1998. The husband filed for nullity citing his wife's psychological incapacity, characterized by infidelity, abandonment, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. While the trial court agreed the marriage was void, a dispute arose regarding the procedural timing of the issuance of the final decree relative to the division of their assets.

• Alain M. Diño and Ma. Caridad L. Diño were childhood sweethearts who cohabited starting in 1984, separated in 1994, reunited in 1996, and legally married on January 14, 1998.
• On May 30, 2001, Alain filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging Caridad failed in her marital obligations due to shopping sprees, infidelity, and violence.
• Caridad was living in the United States at the time of filing; she did not answer the summons but obtained a divorce in California in May 2001 and remarried another man in October 2001.
• A clinical psychologist, Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, diagnosed Caridad with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which was deemed incurable and deeply ingrained.
• The RTC granted the petition on October 18, 2006, declaring the marriage void ab initio due to psychological incapacity.
• The RTC decision ordered that the Decree of Absolute Nullity would only be issued upon compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code (liquidation of properties).
• Alain filed a motion for partial reconsideration, arguing against the condition requiring prior liquidation.
• On March 12, 2007, the RTC modified its decision to reference Article 147 regarding property relations but still maintained that the Decree of Absolute Nullity would be issued only after liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties.

• Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages does not apply to cases governed by Article 147 of the Family Code.
• The trial court erred in ordering that the decree of absolute nullity should only be issued after the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties' properties.

• N/A (Respondent did not file an answer in the trial court and did not participate in the proceedings).

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the trial court erred in ruling that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage declared under Article 36 shall only be issued after the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties' properties.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred. Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity, which requires compliance with Articles 50 and 51 (prior liquidation) before issuing a decree, applies only to marriages declared void under Article 40 (bigamous/subsequent marriages) and Article 45 (voidable marriages).
  • The Court held that in a marriage declared void under Article 36 (psychological incapacity), the property relations are governed by the rules on co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code, not by the absolute community or conjugal partnership regimes that require liquidation under Article 50.
  • Consequently, the decree of absolute nullity for an Article 36 case must be issued immediately upon the finality of the decision, without waiting for the liquidation of assets, which can be done in a separate proceeding or by agreement under the Civil Code rules on co-ownership.

• Applicability of Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity — This section mandates that a decree of nullity be issued only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code. The Court clarified that this rule applies exclusively to marriages void under Articles 40 and 45, where property relations are absolute community or conjugal partnership. It does not apply to Article 36 cases.
• Property Regime in Article 36 Cases (Article 147) — When a marriage is declared void under Article 36, the parties are considered to have no valid marriage but are capacitated to marry. Thus, their property relations are governed by Article 147 of the Family Code (co-ownership), not by absolute community of property or conjugal partnership of gains.
• Liquidation in Co-ownership — Under Article 147 and the Civil Code rules on co-ownership, partition may be made by agreement or judicial proceedings, but it is not a prerequisite condition for the issuance of a decree of nullity of marriage under Article 36.

• "Section 19(1) of the Rule does not apply to cases governed under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code."
• "In short, Article 50 of the Family Code does not apply to marriages which are declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code, which should be declared void without waiting for the liquidation of the properties of the parties."
• "That is not the case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code because the marriage is governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership."

• Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City — Cited to support the ruling that in a void marriage, property relations during cohabitation are governed by either Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code, and liquidation follows the rules on co-ownership.
• Mercado-Fehr v. Fehr — Cited to outline the specific elements required for Article 147 of the Family Code to apply (capacitated parties, exclusive cohabitation, void marriage).
• Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño — Referenced regarding Article 40 of the Family Code and the requirement of a judicial declaration of nullity for remarriage.
• Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay — Referenced regarding Article 45 of the Family Code concerning voidable marriages.

• Family Code, Article 36 — The legal ground used for the declaration of nullity of the marriage (psychological incapacity).
• Family Code, Article 40 — Pertains to the absolute nullity of a previous marriage for purposes of remarriage; identified as one of the specific articles where Section 19(1) applies.
• Family Code, Article 45 — Pertains to voidable marriages; identified as the other specific article where Section 19(1) applies.
• Family Code, Articles 50 and 51 — These articles mandate the liquidation, partition, and delivery of presumptive legitimes. The Court ruled these are inapplicable to Article 36 cases.
• Family Code, Article 147 — Governs the property relations of the parties in this case (co-ownership), as the marriage was void ab initio but the parties were capacitated to marry.
• Section 19(1), Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity — The procedural rule requiring liquidation before the issuance of the decree. The Court limited its application to Articles 40 and 45.