Tanyag vs. Tanyag

Upon filing of a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over incidental and consequential matters including settlement of the parties' common properties, and a party's filing of a separate petition to determine which properties form part of the co-ownership constitutes forum shopping by splitting causes of action warranting dismissal.

Arturo C. Tanyag and Dolores G. Tanyag were married on July 31, 1979, before the effectivity of the Family Code, such that their property relations were governed by the rules on conjugal partnership of gains. Under prevailing law, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity displaces the systems of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, and separation of property, and the property relations of parties to a void marriage are instead governed by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.

Arturo C. Tanyag and Dolores G. Tanyag were married on July 31, 1979. Having married before the effectivity of the Family Code, their property relations were governed by conjugal partnership of gains. In 2004, Dolores filed a Petition to declare the marriage null and void due to Arturo's psychological incapacity before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

During the pendency of that Nullity Case, Dolores filed a separate Petition for Declaration of Paraphernal Property before the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet. She prayed that two parcels of land covered by Original Certificate of Title Nos. P-5362 and P-5363 be declared her exclusive paraphernal property and that Arturo be ordered to surrender to her the owner's duplicate copies of the titles. Arturo challenged the court's jurisdiction over his person and alleged that the Property Case was barred by litis pendentia and that Dolores was guilty of forum shopping because of the Nullity Case.

After proceedings, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City declared the marriage between Dolores and Arturo null and void. Dolores then moved in the Nullity Case to liquidate, partition, and distribute their properties, but her motion was denied. She filed a motion for reconsideration, which Arturo joined by manifestation, and both parties elevated the denial to the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, Arturo filed a Motion for Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defenses in the Property Case seeking dismissal for primary jurisdiction, litis pendentia, and deliberate forum shopping. After an exchange of pleadings, the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals dismissed Arturo's appeal therefrom and denied reconsideration. It was noted that the Court of Appeals later granted the separate certiorari petitions concerning liquidation and remanded the Nullity Case for further proceedings on partition and distribution.

• Litis Pendentia: Petitioner argued that the Property Case is barred by litis pendentia because there is identity of parties, identity in the rights invoked and reliefs sought, and the declaration of nullity results in dissolution and liquidation of the absolute community or conjugal partnership, placing jurisdiction over ownership determination with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
• Forum Shopping: Petitioner maintained that respondent is guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping for omitting the subject parcels from the inventory in the Nullity Case, failing to disclose the Nullity Case praying for the same reliefs in the verification and certification, and simultaneously seeking liquidation, partition, and distribution before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, then pending before the Court of Appeals.
• Finality Before Liquidation: Petitioner pointed out that nullity of the marriage must attain finality before liquidation, partition, and distribution of the properties.

• Prematurity and Form: Respondent countered that it was improper and premature to raise forum shopping when the assailed Order involved denial of a Motion for Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defenses, not a motion to dismiss.
• Estoppel by Participation: Respondent argued that petitioner is estopped from questioning the validity of the proceedings having already participated in trial.

• Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping: Whether the Petition for Declaration of Paraphernal Property must be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia.

• Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping: Yes. Dismissal was warranted because the requisites of litis pendentia concurred and the separate suit split a cause of action already within the nullity court's incidental jurisdiction, constituting forum shopping.

• Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping: Identity of parties was undisputed in the Nullity and Property Cases. Although the immediate causes appeared different — validity of marriage versus paraphernal character of two parcels — identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for existed as to the properties, since both parties claimed ownership and sought adjudication as respective owners, with relief founded on the same facts of ownership. Judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other because marital status determines property relations; a finding of psychological incapacity and absolute nullity creates a special co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code, determining whether any conjugal partnership exists to which the subject properties might be attributed and changing the governing rules. Settlement of common property being incidental and consequential to nullity, the nullity court was clothed with authority to resolve it and to determine inclusions and exclusions from co-ownership, including through liquidation, partition, and distribution on motion under Section 21 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which respondent herself invoked. Filing the separate Property Case before a different court therefore split causes of action and constituted forum shopping, requiring dismissal for litis pendentia if liquidation remained pending or res judicata if finally resolved.

• Litis pendentia — Exists where another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. Its three requisites are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. Applied here to bar the Property Case in view of the pending Nullity Case and its liquidation incidents.
• Res judicata — Bars a subsequent case when: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over subject matter and parties; (3) it is a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions. Stated as the alternative test for forum shopping alongside litis pendentia, depending on whether liquidation in the Nullity Case remained pending or had been finally resolved.
• Forum shopping — Committed by a party who institutes two or more suits in different courts, simultaneously or successively, to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. It may be committed by: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and same prayer with the previous case unresolved (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause and same prayer with the previous case finally resolved (res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause but with different prayers (splitting causes of action, dismissible on either litis pendentia or res judicata). Applied here where respondent split the property issue from the nullity proceeding.
• Nullity court's jurisdiction over incidental matters — A court with jurisdiction to declare a marriage a nullity is deemed clothed with authority to resolve incidental and consequential matters, including settlement of the parties' common property and determination of which properties are included in or excluded from co-ownership. Applied to hold that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in the Nullity Case could take cognizance of liquidation, partition, and distribution.
• Property regime of void marriages — Void marriages are no marriages, so the Family Code systems of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, and separation of property do not apply; the regime is governed by Article 147 or Article 148 depending on absence or presence of legal impediment to marry. Applied to hold that declaration of nullity for psychological incapacity would determine whether a conjugal partnership even existed and which rules governed the disputed parcels.
• Special co-ownership under Article 147 — Applies when a man and woman suffering no legal impediment so exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without benefit of marriage; property acquired through work and industry is governed by equal co-ownership, prima facie presumed obtained through joint efforts, with care and maintenance of the household counting as contribution, while fruits of separate property are excluded unlike in conjugal partnership. Applied to explain why the nullity finding necessarily affects the Property Case.
• Liquidation upon nullity judgment — Under Section 21 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, upon entry of judgment granting the petition or, on appeal, upon receipt of entry of judgment of the appellate court, the Family Court on motion of either party shall proceed with liquidation, partition, and distribution, including custody, support, and presumptive legitimes under Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code, unless previously adjudicated. Applied to show respondent's proper remedy was by motion in the Nullity Case, which she in fact filed.

• "Upon the parties' filing of a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, trial courts also acquire jurisdiction over matters incidental and consequential to the marriage." — States the jurisdictional premise for treating property settlement as cognizable in the nullity proceeding rather than in a separate suit.
• "By filing another petition for the determination of which properties form part of the co-ownership, a party commits forum shopping by splitting causes of action." — Articulates the ratio that a separate paraphernal-property suit splits the nullity cause and must be dismissed.
• "a court which has jurisdiction to declare the marriage a nullity must be deemed likewise clothed with authority to resolve incidental and consequential matters." — Provides the canonical Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court formulation relied upon to sustain the nullity court's authority over common properties.
• "when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court." — Defines forum shopping as applied to respondent's simultaneous resort to two trial courts over the parties' properties.

• Pavlow vs. Mendenilla, 809 Phil. 24 (2017) — Followed as the exposition of res judicata, litis pendentia, and forum shopping, including the test of identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.
• Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City, 328 Phil. 1289 (1996) — Followed for holding that settlement of common property under Article 147 is incidental and consequential to declaration of nullity and that the nullity court may take cognizance thereof.
• Tan-Andal vs. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021 — Followed for holding that void marriages are no marriages and property relations therein are governed by Article 147 or Article 148 rather than absolute community, conjugal partnership, or separation of property.
• Mercado-Fehr vs. Fehr, 460 Phil. 445 (2003) — Cited alongside Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court on the effect of absolute nullity on property relations under Article 147.
• Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Co., Inc., 660 Phil. 504 (2011) — Followed for the definition of forum shopping and its three modes, including splitting causes of action.
• City of Taguig vs. City of Makati — Cited through Pavlow vs. Mendenilla on the definition of forum shopping and its test relying on litis pendentia and res judicata.
• Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. vs. Paxton Development Corporation — Cited through Pavlow vs. Mendenilla explaining forum shopping and splitting causes of action.
• Yap vs. Chua, et al. — Cited for the settled test for forum shopping based on presence of litis pendentia elements or res judicata effect.
• Chua vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company — Cited through Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Co., Inc. for the three ways forum shopping may be committed.

• Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court — Requires certification against forum shopping, complete statement of pending actions involving same issues, and reporting of subsequently learned similar actions; violation causes dismissal without prejudice, false certification constitutes indirect contempt, and willful deliberate forum shopping warrants summary dismissal with prejudice, direct contempt, and administrative sanctions. Applied to find respondent guilty of forum shopping for filing the separate Property Case.
• Article 147, Family Code — Governs the special co-ownership of parties without legal impediment living exclusively as husband and wife under a void marriage, covering property acquired through work and industry with presumption of joint efforts. Applied to show that nullity for psychological incapacity would determine the applicable regime for the disputed lands.
• Section 21, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) — Directs the Family Court, upon entry of judgment granting nullity, on motion of either party to proceed with liquidation, partition, and distribution under Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless previously adjudicated. Applied to establish the proper forum and remedy for settling the parties' properties.
• Articles 50 and 51, Family Code — Referenced as governing liquidation, partition, distribution, custody, support, and delivery of presumptive legitimes consequent to nullity. Applied as the substantive basis for proceedings under Section 21.
• Articles 37 and 38, Family Code — Referenced to define legal impediments relevant to capacity to marry under Article 147. Applied to delimit when the Article 147 co-ownership applies.

Carandang, Zalameda, Rosario, and Dimaampao, JJ., concur. No separate concurring reasoning adding to the majority is detailed in the text.