Ocampo vs. Ocampo

In a void marriage declared under Article 36 of the Family Code where both parties are capacitated to marry each other, Article 147 governs the property relations during the period of cohabitation, creating a regime of equal co-ownership (50-50 sharing) for properties acquired during the union, which are prima facie presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts regardless of registration in the name of one spouse; forfeiture of the share of a party in bad faith applies only where only one party is in good faith, and psychological incapacity does not constitute such bad faith.

Virginia Sy Ocampo and Deogracio Ocampo married on January 16, 1978. During the subsistence of their marriage, they acquired real properties registered in Virginia's name. On September 10, 1990, Virginia filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City seeking a declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging Deogracio's psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the petition on January 22, 1993, declaring the marriage void ab initio. The decision became final. Thereafter, the parties failed to agree on the liquidation and partition of their properties, leading to contentious proceedings regarding their respective contributions to the acquisition of assets accumulated during the union.

• The Marriage and Declaration of Nullity: Virginia Sy Ocampo and Deogracio Ocampo were married on January 16, 1978. On September 10, 1990, Virginia filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87, seeking the declaration of nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of Deogracio's psychological incapacity. On January 22, 1993, the trial court granted the petition, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio and awarding custody of the children to Virginia. The decision became final when no party appealed.
• The Conjugal Properties: During the marriage, the parties acquired real properties registered in Virginia's name. Following the declaration of nullity, the trial court directed the parties on March 31, 1999, to submit a project of partition of their inventoried properties. The parties failed to agree, necessitating hearings where they adduced evidence regarding their respective contributions to the acquisition of the properties.
• The Trial Court Ruling: On January 13, 2004, the trial court issued an Order ruling that the properties declared by the parties belong to each one of them on a 50-50 sharing basis. The court found that Virginia failed to present sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the properties were acquired solely through her efforts and her mother's seed money, relying instead on self-serving allegations and testimonial evidence.
• Appeal to the Court of Appeals: Virginia filed a Notice of Appeal on February 2, 2004. Deogracio moved to dismiss the appeal, which was denied by the trial court. In a Decision dated August 11, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied Virginia's appeal, affirming the equal sharing of properties. The CA denied Virginia's Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 5, 2011.

• Exclusive Acquisition: Virginia argued that she was solely responsible for acquiring the subject properties through her business efforts and financial contributions, including seed money provided by her mother. She maintained that Deogracio contributed nothing to the acquisition and was an irresponsible and unfaithful husband.
• Bad Faith and Forfeiture: Petitioner contended that Deogracio should be deprived of his share in the co-owned properties by reason of his psychological incapacity, which constitutes bad faith and psychological perversity. She argued that the forfeiture provision under Article 147 should apply to deprive the respondent of his share.
• Presumption of Conjugal Partnership: Virginia asserted that the properties should not be subject to equal co-ownership under Article 147 but should be governed by different rules given her exclusive contribution to their acquisition.

• Equal Co-ownership under Article 147: Respondent argued that Article 147 of the Family Code applies to their void marriage, creating a regime of equal co-ownership where properties acquired during the union are owned in equal shares. He maintained that the presumption of joint acquisition under Article 147 had not been overcome by Virginia's evidence.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent countered that Virginia failed to present documentary evidence to prove her exclusive acquisition of the properties, relying only on self-serving testimonial evidence insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption.
• Inapplicability of Forfeiture: Respondent argued that forfeiture under Article 147 requires proof that only one party is in good faith, and that psychological incapacity does not equate to bad faith in the context of property relations warranting forfeiture.

• Applicability of Article 147: Whether Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the property relations of parties in a marriage declared void under Article 36 on the ground of psychological incapacity.
• Burden of Proof and Presumption of Joint Acquisition: Whether the petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption that properties acquired during the union were obtained through joint efforts.
• Forfeiture for Bad Faith: Whether the respondent's psychological incapacity constitutes bad faith warranting forfeiture of his share under Article 147 of the Family Code.

• Applicability of Article 147: Article 147 applies to the property relations of parties in a void marriage declared under Article 36 where both parties are capacitated to marry each other. The provision governs unions where the parties live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, provided they suffer no legal impediment to marry each other. The rules on liquidation of conjugal partnerships or absolute communities do not apply; instead, the rules on co-ownership under the Civil Code govern the liquidation.
• Burden of Proof and Presumption of Joint Acquisition: The petitioner failed to overcome the presumption under Article 147 that properties acquired during the union were obtained through joint efforts. Certificates of title and tax declarations in the name of one spouse alone are insufficient to rebut the presumption that properties acquired during the marriage are conjugal or co-owned. The burden of proving exclusive acquisition by one party's efforts rests on the party asserting it, which Virginia failed to discharge through documentary evidence, relying only on testimonial evidence deemed self-serving.
• Forfeiture for Bad Faith: Forfeiture under Article 147 applies only when only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 does not constitute bad faith in the context of property relations that would warrant forfeiture of the incapacitated spouse's share. The trial court correctly found that attempts to establish Deogracio as irresponsible and unfaithful failed to convince the court that he should be deprived of his share.

• Article 147 Co-ownership in Void Marriages — In void marriages where both parties are capacitated to marry each other (no legal impediment exists), property relations during the period of cohabitation are governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, creating a regime of equal co-ownership. This applies specifically to marriages declared void under Article 36 (psychological incapacity). The requisites for application are: (1) the parties 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. Properties acquired during such union are prima facie presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts, work, or industry, and shall be owned in equal shares.
• Presumption of Joint Contribution — Under Article 147, 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. Efforts in care and maintenance are regarded as contributions to the acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry.
• Burden of Proof in Property Acquisition — The burden of proof rests on the party claiming that properties are not conjugal or co-owned. Mere registration of property in the name of one spouse does not overcome the presumption that properties acquired during the marriage are conjugal or subject to equal co-ownership under Article 147.
• Forfeiture under Article 147 — Forfeiture of the share of the party in bad faith applies only where only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith. The share forfeited goes to the common children, or in their default, to the innocent party. Psychological incapacity does not per se constitute bad faith warranting forfeiture.

• "Article 147 of the Family Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void, as in this case." — Defining the scope of Article 147 regarding void marriages.
• "From the foregoing, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry should, therefore, be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts." — Establishing the presumption of equal co-ownership.
• "The certificates of titles and tax declarations are not sufficient proof to overcome the presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code. All properties acquired by the spouses during the marriage, regardless in whose name the properties are registered, are presumed conjugal unless proved otherwise." — On the insufficiency of title registration to overcome statutory presumptions.
• "Even a plain housewife who stays all the time in the house and takes care of the household while the husband indulges in lucrative and gainful activities is entitled to a share in the same proportion the husband is, to the property or properties acquired by the marriage." — On the recognition of non-monetary contributions to property acquisition.

• Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City, 328 Phil. 1289 (1996) — Controlling precedent establishing that Article 147 applies to void marriages and that the rules on liquidation of conjugal partnerships do not apply to the co-ownership between common-law spouses or spouses of void marriages; followed in determining the applicable property regime.
• Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 471 Phil. 394 (2004) — Cited for the proposition that the Family Code applies to conjugal partnerships established before its effectivity and that the presumption under Article 116 remains even if property is registered in the name of one spouse only.
• Marietta N. Barrido v. Leonardo V. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014 — Recent precedent reaffirming the application of Article 147 to void marriages and the rules on co-ownership.

• Article 36, Family Code — Provides that a marriage contracted by any party who was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations is void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization; applied to declare the marriage void.
• Article 105, Family Code — Mandates that the Family Code shall apply to conjugal partnerships established before the Family Code without prejudice to vested rights already acquired under the Civil Code or other laws; basis for applying Family Code provisions to the 1978 marriage.
• Article 116, Family Code — Provides that all property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless proved otherwise; cited for the presumption regarding properties acquired during marriage.
• Article 147, Family Code — Governs the property relations of parties who are capacitated to marry each other and live exclusively as husband and wife without benefit of marriage or under a void marriage; establishes equal co-ownership of wages, salaries, and properties acquired through work or industry, and provides for forfeiture of the share of a party in bad faith when only one party is in good faith.
• Article 148, Family Code — Distinguished as applicable to unions where parties are not capacitated to marry each other; Article 147 was applied instead because no impediment existed between the parties.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Perez, and Jardeleza, JJ.