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

In a void marriage, regardless of the cause, the property relations of the parties during cohabitation are governed by Articles 147 or 148 of the Family Code, and the rules on liquidation of absolute community or conjugal partnership under Articles 102 and 129 do not apply.

The case addresses the confusion over which property regime governs the liquidation of properties when a marriage is declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code—specifically whether the rules on co-ownership for void marriages apply, or whether the liquidation procedures for valid/voidable marriages apply.

• Original Filing: RTC of Quezon City, Branch 102, Civil Case No. Q-92-12539 (Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage)
• Lower Court Decision: July 29, 1994 — Marriage declared null and void under Art. 36; directed liquidation of common properties under Art. 147 and compliance with Arts. 50, 51, and 52.
• Clarification Order: May 5, 1995 — RTC clarified that Art. 147 governs, properties are owned in equal shares, and Civil Code provisions on co-ownership apply; Arts. 102 and 129 find no application.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Denied on October 30, 1995.
• SC Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari raising pure questions of law.

• Marriage and Children: Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez married on January 5, 1971, and had five children.
• Petition for Nullity: On June 22, 1992, Valdes filed a petition to declare the marriage void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code due to mutual psychological incapacity.
• RTC Decision: On July 29, 1994, the RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage void. It directed the parties to start liquidation of common properties defined by Art. 147 and to comply with Arts. 50, 51, and 52 of the Family Code.
• Motion for Clarification: Consuelo sought clarification on the liquidation procedure, noting the Family Code lacks provisions for liquidation of "unions without marriage." During the hearing, the children filed a joint affidavit expressing their desire to stay with their father.
• RTC Clarification Order: On May 5, 1995, the RTC clarified that under Art. 147, the parties own the family home and other properties in equal shares. It ruled that Civil Code provisions on co-ownership apply to liquidation and partition, explicitly stating Arts. 102 and 129 do not apply.
• Denial of MR: The RTC denied Valdes's motion for reconsideration on October 30, 1995, prompting this petition.

• Article 147 of the Family Code does 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 govern the disposition of the family dwelling in marriages declared void ab initio, including those under Art. 36.
• Assuming arguendo that Art. 147 applies, it can be read consistently with Art. 129.
• It is necessary to determine the parent with whom the majority of the children wish to stay, invoking the rule on adjudication of the family dwelling under Arts. 102 and 129.

• The Family Code contains no provisions on the procedure for liquidation of common property in "unions without marriage."
• (Implicitly supporting the RTC's clarification) Article 147 explicitly provides for equal shares in properties acquired during the union, and Civil Code provisions on co-ownership should apply to liquidation and partition.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Articles 50, 51, and 52 in relation to Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code govern the disposition of the family dwelling in a marriage declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity, or whether Article 147 applies.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The SC held that Article 147 of the Family Code governs the property relations of parties in a void marriage, regardless of the cause of the nullity.
  • The rules on liquidation of absolute community (Art. 102) and conjugal partnership (Art. 129) are irrelevant to the liquidation of co-ownership between common-law spouses or spouses in void marriages.
  • Article 50, which incorporates paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of Art. 43, relates only to voidable marriages and, exceptionally, to void marriages under Art. 40 (where a subsequent marriage is contracted before a prior void marriage is judicially declared void). Art. 40 is a special rule requiring a judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage to avoid uncertainty; it does not apply to Art. 36 cases.
  • The SC noted that the provisions on the "family home" under Title V, Chapter 2 of the Family Code remain in force and effect regardless of the property regime of the spouses.

• Property regime in void marriages (Article 147) — When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other live exclusively as husband and wife under a void marriage, their wages and salaries are owned in equal shares, and property acquired through their work or industry is governed by co-ownership.
• Properties acquired during cohabitation are presumed to have been obtained by joint efforts and owned in equal shares.
• A party who did not participate in acquisition is deemed to have contributed jointly if their efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and household.
• Neither party can encumber or dispose of their share by acts inter vivos without the consent of the other during cohabitation.
• A party in bad faith forfeits their share in favor of common children (or descendants, or the innocent party) upon termination of cohabitation or declaration of nullity.
• Property regime in void marriages (Article 148) — When common-law spouses suffer from a legal impediment to marry or do not live exclusively with each other, only property acquired by both through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry is owned in common in proportion to their respective contributions (prima facie presumed equal).

• Article 147, Family Code — Governs property relations of capacitated parties living under a void marriage. Applied as the correct legal framework for liquidation of properties in a marriage declared void under Art. 36.
• Article 148, Family Code — Governs property relations when parties suffer legal impediment or do not live exclusively. Mentioned for contrast with Art. 147.
• Articles 50, 51, 52, Family Code — Govern liquidation, partition, and delivery of presumptive legitimes in voidable marriages and void marriages under Art. 40. Held inapplicable to marriages declared void under Art. 36.
• Articles 102 and 129, Family Code — Govern liquidation of absolute community and conjugal partnership, respectively, including adjudication of the family dwelling. Held inapplicable to void marriages under Art. 36.
• Article 40, Family Code — Requires a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void before remarriage. Art. 50 applies exceptionally here to avoid uncertainty in subsequent marriages, but this does not extend to Art. 36 cases.
• Articles 43, 41, 42, Family Code — Relate to effects of termination of subsequent marriages and presumptive death. Cited to explain the exceptional application of Art. 50 to Art. 40 cases.