BRIGIDO B.

QUIAO, Petitioner,
vs.
RITA C. QUIAO, KITCHIE C. QUIAO, LOTIS C. QUIAO, PETCHIE C. QUIAO,
represented by their mother RITA QUIAO, Respondents.

Subject:

Facts:
 Petitioner BrigidoQuiao was married to respondent Rita Quiao in 1977 and got four
children. They had no separate propertiesprior to their marriage.
 In 2000, Rita filed a complaint against Brigido for legal separation for cohabiting with
another woman. Subsequently, the RTC rendered a decision in 2005 declaring the legal
separation of the parties pursuant to Article 55, thereby awarding the custody of their three
minor children in favor of Rita, who is the innocent spouse.
 The properties accrued by the spouses shall be divided equally between them subject to the
respective legitimise of their children; however, Brigido’s share of the net profits earned
by the conjugal partnership shall be forfeited in favor of their children in accordance to
par. 9 of Article 129 of the Family Code.
 A few months thereafter, Rita filed a motion for execution, which was granted by the trial
court. By 2006, Brigido paid Rita with regards to the earlier decision; the writ was partially
executed.
 After more than nine months, Brigido filed a motion for clarification asking the RTC to
define “Nets Profits Earned.” In answer, the court held that the phrase denotes “the
remainder of the properties of the parties after deducting the separate properties of each of
the spouses and debts.”
 Upon a motion for reconsideration, it initially set aside its previous decision stating that
net profit earned shall be computed in accordance with par. 4 of Article 102 of the Family
Code. However, it later reverted to its original Order, setting aside the last ruling.

Issue:
Whether or not the offending spouse acquired vested rights over ½ of the properties in the conjugal
partnership.

Held:
In the case at bar, since it was already established by the trial court that the spouses have no
separate properties, there is nothing to return to any of them.

The listed properties are considered part of the conjugal partnership. Thus, ordinarily, what
remains in the listed properties should be divided equally between the spouses and/or their
respective heirs. However, since the trial court found the petitioner the guilty party, his share from
the net profits of the conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the common children, pursuant to
Article 63(2) of the Family Code.

So, as not to be confused, like in the absolute community regime, nothing will be returned to the
guilty party in the conjugal partnership regime, because there is no separate property which may
be accounted for in the guilty party’s favor.