View full case

ANTONIO A. S. VALDES v. RTC

FACTS:

Antonio Valdes filed a petition for review challenging the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. Q-92-12539, seeking the nullity of his marriage with Consuelo Gomez under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage null and void due to the parties' mutual psychological incapacity. The court also made orders regarding the custody of the children and the liquidation of the common properties. Consuelo Gomez sought clarification regarding the liquidation of common property in "unions without marriage" and the court clarified that Article 147 of the Family Code would govern the property regime, treating it as a co-ownership. Antonio Valdes filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the court. Valdes then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Articles 50, 51, and 52 of the Family Code should apply to the disposition of the family dwelling. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, stating that in a void marriage, the property relations of the parties are governed by either Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code. Article 147 is applicable when a man and a woman live together without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, and their wages and salaries are jointly owned while property acquired through their work or industry is governed by the rules on co-ownership.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Article 147 of the Family Code applies to marriages declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity.

  2. Whether Articles 50, 51, and 52 of the Family Code should govern the disposition of the family dwelling in cases where a marriage is declared void ab initio.

  3. Whether Article 147 can be read consistently with Article 129 of the Family Code.

  4. Whether it is necessary to determine the parent with whom the majority of the children wish to stay.

RULING:

  1. The trial court correctly applied the law. In a void marriage, 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 Article 148, such as the case may be, of the Family Code. Article 147 is a remake of Article 144 of the Civil Code as interpreted and so applied in previous cases. It states that when a man and a woman live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares, and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The property relations of parties in a void marriage are governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.

  • Article 147 applies to marriages declared void ab initio, regardless of the cause thereof.

  • The disposition of the family dwelling in cases of a void marriage should be governed by Article 147 and not Articles 50, 51, and 52 of the Family Code.

  • Determining the parent with whom the majority of the children wish to stay is necessary.