Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 102, Quezon City

In a marriage declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation are governed by the rules on co-ownership under Article 147, not by the rules on conjugal partnership of gains or absolute community of property.

The case originated from a petition filed by the husband to declare his marriage null and void based on Article 36 of the Family Code. After the trial court granted the nullity, a dispute arose regarding the applicable laws for liquidating the couple's common properties, specifically the family dwelling. The trial court issued a clarification order stating that the rules of co-ownership applied, which the petitioner contested, arguing for the application of laws governing valid or voidable marriages.

• Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez were married on January 5, 1971, and had five children.
• On June 22, 1992, Antonio filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition on July 29, 1994, declaring the marriage null and void due to mutual psychological incapacity.
• The RTC directed the parties to start proceedings on the liquidation of their common properties as defined by Article 147 of the Family Code and to comply with Articles 50, 51, and 52.
• Consuelo sought clarification on the decision, asserting that the Family Code lacked provisions for liquidating common property in "unions without marriage."
• On May 5, 1995, the RTC issued an order clarifying that Article 147 (co-ownership) applies and that Articles 102 (liquidation of conjugal partnership) and 129 (liquidation of absolute community) do not apply.
• Antonio moved for reconsideration, arguing that Articles 50, 51, and 52 should control the disposition of the family dwelling, but the motion was denied.

• Article 147 of the Family Code should not apply to cases where parties are psychologically incapacitated.
• Articles 50, 51, and 52, in relation to Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code, should govern the disposition of the family dwelling in marriages declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity.
• Even if Article 147 applies, it should be read consistently with Article 129 regarding the disposition of the family home.
• It is necessary to determine the parent with whom the majority of the children wish to stay for the disposition of the family dwelling.

• The Family Code contains no specific provisions on the procedure for the liquidation of common property in unions without marriage (Argument raised in the lower court seeking clarification).

• Procedural Issues:
• N/A
• Substantive Issues:
• Whether the property relations and liquidation of assets in a marriage declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity (Article 36) are governed by Article 147 (co-ownership) or by Articles 50, 51, and 52 in relation to Articles 102 and 129 (Conjugal Partnership/Absolute Community).

• Procedural:
• The trial court did not act imprudently or precipitately in taking cognizance of the settlement of common property, as a court with jurisdiction to declare a marriage null is also clothed with authority to resolve incidental and consequential matters.
• Substantive:
• The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC, ruling that in a void marriage, regardless of the cause, the property relations are governed by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.
• Article 147 establishes a peculiar kind of co-ownership for parties who are capacitated to marry but live together without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage.
• Articles 102 and 129 refer to the liquidation of conjugal partnership and absolute community, respectively, which are regimes for valid or voidable marriages, and thus do not apply to void marriages.
• Article 50 of the Family Code applies only to voidable marriages and to void marriages under Article 40 (subsequent marriage without judicial declaration of nullity of the first), not to marriages void under Article 36.

• Co-ownership in Void Marriages (Article 147) — A property regime applicable when a man and woman, capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively as husband and wife under a void marriage; wages and salaries are owned in equal shares, and property acquired by their work or industry is governed by rules on co-ownership.
• Presumption of Joint Contribution — Under Article 147, in the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while the parties lived together are presumed obtained by joint efforts and owned in equal shares; care and maintenance of the family constitutes a contribution.
• Void Marriages as Inexistent — The doctrine that void marriages are inexistent from the very beginning, meaning no judicial decree is strictly necessary to establish their nullity (though required for remarriage), and therefore they cannot give rise to conjugal partnerships or absolute communities.

• "In a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, such as the case may be, of the Family Code."
• "This peculiar kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no legal impediment to marry each other, so exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage."

• Margaret Maxey vs. Court of Appeals — Cited to show that Article 147 is a remake of Article 144 of the Civil Code as interpreted in previous jurisprudence.
• Aznar, et al. vs. Garcia, et al. — Cited alongside Maxey to reference the interpretation of Article 144 of the Civil Code regarding property rights in void marriages.

• Family Code, Article 36 — The ground used for the declaration of nullity of the marriage (psychological incapacity).
• Family Code, Article 147 — The provision governing property relations in void marriages where parties have no legal impediment to marry (co-ownership).
• Family Code, Articles 50, 51, and 52 — Provisions regarding the liquidation of properties in voidable marriages and specific void marriages (Art. 40), which the petitioner argued should apply.
• Family Code, Articles 102 and 129 — Procedures for liquidating Conjugal Partnership and Absolute Community, respectively, ruled inapplicable to Article 36 cases.
• Family Code, Article 40 — Relates to the requirement of a judicial declaration of nullity for remarriage; identified as the exception where Article 50 applies to a void marriage.
• Family Code, Article 43 — Provisions on the effects of the termination of a subsequent marriage, referenced in relation to Article 50.