Valdes v RTC

Antonio (petitioner) and Consuelo were married on Jan 5,

1971. Antonio sought the declaration of nullity of their
marriage pursuant to Art 36 of the FC- mutual psychological
incapacity. RTC directed liquidation of their properties as
defined by Art 147 of the FC and to comply with the
provisions of Art 50, 51, 52 of the same code.
TC made the clarification, stating that the conjugal dwelling
and all their properties will be owned in equal shares pursuant
to Art 147.
Antonio moved for reconsideration.
ISSUE: WON the RTC correctly applied the provision of Art
147 regarding the partition of the conjugal dwelling.
Held: The trial court correctly applied the law. In void
marriages, 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 148.
This 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.
*capacitated means legal capacity, any male or female the
age of 18 and upwards not under any of the impediments
mentioned in At 37( incestuous marriage) Art 38 ( contrary to
public policy)
Property acquired by both spouses through their work and
industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. Any
property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to
have been obtained through their joint efforts.
Unlike the conjugal partnership of gains, the fruits of the
couples separate property are not included in the coownership.
The trial court acted neither imprudently nor
precipitately. Nor did it commit a reversible error in
ruling that petitioner and private respondent own the
family home and all their common property in equal
shares.
The rules set up to govern the liquidation of either the
absolute
community or conjugal partnership of gains,

property regimes recognized for valid and voidable

marriages(until the contract is annulled) are irrelevant to the
liquidation of the co-ownership that exists bet common-law
spouses

Metrobank v Pascual
Nicholson Pascual (Respondent) and Florencia were married
on Jan 19, 1985. During the union, Florencia bought an
apartment located in Makati issued in the name of Florencia
married to Nocholson Pascual.
In 1994, Florencia filed for declaration of nullity of marriage
under Art 36 of the FC. RTC declared the marriage void on the
ground of Nicholsons psychological incapacity and ordered
the dissolution and liquidation of their conjugal partnership of
gains. The ex-spouses did not liquidate their conjugal
partnership.
On April 30, 1997, Florencia along with spouses Oliveros
obtained a P58mil loan from Metrobank and to secure
obligation, they executed several mortgage including the
property she bought during her marriage with Nicholson.
Florencia and Oliveros failed to pay the loan and Metrobank
initiated foreclosure proceeding.
After learning of the proceeding, Nicholson filed a Complaint
to declare the nullity of the mortgage of the disputed
property. Nicholson alleged that the property which is still
conjugal was mortgaged without his consent.
Metrobank alleged that it was Florencias paraphernal
property being registered in her name.
RTC rendered the REM invalid pursuant to Art 116. CA
affirmed pursuan to failure to comply with Art 124.
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in (1) declaring subject property as
conjugal pursuant to Art 116; (2) not holding that the
declaration of nullity of marriage ipso facto dissolved the
regime of community property of the spouses.
Held: The disputed property is conjugal. The use of conjugal
funds is not an essential requirement for the presumption of
conjugal ownership to arise. Only proof of acquisition during

the marriage is needed to raise the presumption of conjugal

ownership.
Termination of Conjugal Property regime does not ipso facto
End the Nature of Conjugal ownership. Character of the
properties acquired continues to subsist until after the
liquidation and partition of the partnership.
Pending its liquidation, the conjugal partnership of gains is
converted into an implied ordinary co-ownership. Under Art
493 Florencia is has the right to mortgage or even sell

undivided interest in the disputed property even without the

consent of Nicholson.
Therefore, the rights of Metrobank as mortgagee is limited
only to the undivided portion that Florencia owned.