Case Digest: Article 148 of Family Code (Valdes vs. RTC et al.)

ANTONIO A. S. VALDES, petitioner

vs.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 102, QUEZON CITY, and CONSUELO M. GOMEZ-VALDES, respondents.

G.R. No. 122749. July 31, 1996

VITUG, J.:

Facts: In 1971, Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez got married and acquired five children. In 1992, Valdez filed a petition for a declaration of nullity of their marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. Thereafter, the trial court granted the petition and declared their marriage null and void. Stella and Joaquin are placed under the custody of their mother while the three older children, Carlos Enrique III, Antonio Quintin and Angela Rosario shall choose which parent they would want to stay with.

The petitioner and respondent shall have visitation rights over the children who are in the custody of the other.

Gomez sought a clarification of that portion in the decision regarding the procedure for the liquidation of common property in “unions without marriage”. The trial court clarified that in the liquidation and partition of the properties owned in common by the Valdes and Gomez, the provisions on co-ownership found in the Civil Code shall apply.

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the order and was denied on 30 October 1995

In his recourse to this Court, petitioner submits that Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the Family Code should be held controlling; he argued that:

(1) Article 147 of the Family Code does not apply to cases where the parties are psychologically incapacitated;

(2) Articles 50, 51 and 52 in relation to Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code govern the disposition of the family dwelling in cases where a marriage is declared void ab initio, including a marriage declared void by reason of the psychological incapacity of the spouses;

(3) Assuming arguendo that Article 147 applies to marriages declared void ab initio on the ground of the psychological incapacity of a spouse, the same may be read consistently with Article 129.

Issue: Whether the property regime in the case at bar should be based on article 147 of Family Code.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that in a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties are 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. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said party’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family.