View full case

ALAIN M. DIÑO v. MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO

FACTS:

Alain M. Diño (petitioner) and Ma. Caridad L. Diño (respondent) were childhood friends and sweethearts who lived together from 1984 to 1994 and then decided to separate. In 1996, they reconciled and started living together again. On 14 January 1998, they got married. On 30 May 2001, petitioner filed for a declaration of nullity of their marriage, citing psychological incapacity. Petitioner alleged that respondent failed in her marital obligations, spent money recklessly, and was unfaithful and violent at times. Respondent, who was already living in the United States, was served with the summons but did not file an answer to the petition. It was later discovered that respondent obtained a divorce abroad and married another man. The Office of the Las Piñas prosecutor found no evidence of collusion and the case proceeded to trial. A clinical psychologist's report was submitted, establishing respondent's Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The trial court granted the petition, finding that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her marital obligations. The trial court also ruled that respondent's act of obtaining a divorce abroad and marrying another man amounted to abandonment. Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration, challenging the dissolution of the absolute community of property and the requirement for compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code before the decree of nullity of marriage would be issued. The trial court partially granted the motion, but petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court to challenge the requirement for compliance with Article 147 of the Family Code in liquidating, partitioning, and distributing the parties' properties before the decree of nullity could be issued.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court erred when it ordered that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties' properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

RULING:

  1. The trial court erred in ordering that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall be issued only after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties' properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The ruling has no basis because Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages does not apply to cases governed under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code. Therefore, the decree of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be issued upon finality of the trial court's decision without waiting for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties' properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Article 147 of the Family Code's application requirements:

    • The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each other.

    • They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife.

    • Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void.

  2. Article 50 of the Family Code applies only to void marriages under Articles 40 and 45, not Article 36.

  3. Co-ownership rules apply for the liquidation of properties in void marriages under Article 36, and such liquidation need not be completed before issuing a decree of nullity.

  4. Section 19(1) of the Rule does not apply to marriages void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

  5. It is not necessary to liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for the declaration of nullity of marriage.