G.R.

No 176556
Quiao vs. Quiao
July 4, 2012
Brigido B. Quiao, Petitioner, vs.
Rita C. Quiao, Kitchie C. Quiao, Lotis C. Quiao, Petchie C. Quiao, represented by their mother Rita Quiao, Respondents

Keywords/Anchor Topic: Effects of decree of legal separation on property relations

Nature: Petition for review on certiorari
Ponente: REYES, J.

Facts:
1. On October 26, 2000, Rita Quiao filed a complaint for legal separation against Brigido Quaio.
2. The Regional Trial court rendered that they shall be entitled to live separately from each other but the
marriage bond shall not be severed. Their properties shall be divided equally between the respondent and
petitioner. Petioner's share of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the
common children because he has been found to be the offending spouse.

Issue/s

Issue/s (related to the topic) Held/Ratio

1. Did the trial court erred in NO.
its decision that after the
decree of legal separation the  First, let us determine what governs the couple's property
petitioner is not entitled to any
property at all?
relation. ---- The petitioner and the respondent tied the marital
knot on January 6, 1977. At that time, the operative law was
the Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386) and since they
did not agree on a marriage settlement, the property relations
between the petitioner and the respondent is the system of
relative community or conjugal partnership of gains. (see Art
119 of the Civil Code)

 Second, since at the time of the dissolution of the petitioner

and the respondent's marriage the operative law is already the
Family Code, the same applies in the instant case and the
applicable law in so far as the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership assets and liabilities is concerned (Article 129 of
the FC in relation to Article 63(2) of the FC). The latter
provision is applicable because according to Article 256 of the
Family Code "[t]his Code shall have retroactive effect insofar
as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code or other law."

 But Article 102(4) applies to both the dissolution of the

absolute community regime under Article 102 of the Family
Code, and to the dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime
under Article 129 of the Family Code. 

 It was already established by the trial court that the spouses

have no separate properties when they married, so although
they are under the conjugal partnership regime there is
nothing to return to any of them.

 The net remainder of their conjugal property should be divided

equally among them, but the husband’s portion shall be
forfeited in favor of the common children because he has been
proved to be the guilty party.

Decision:
The decision of the RTC has been affirmed.