Nullity of Marriage Because of Psychological Incapacity

Posted by lexforiphilippines on August 3, 2010 Article 36 of the Family Code states that (a) marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitatedto comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall li ewise be !oid e!en if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemni"ation#$ %n Santos s! Court of Appeals "#!$! No! %%&'%() * +anuary %((,- , the &upreme 'ourt said that .psychological incapacity/ must be characteri"ed by (a) gra!ity, (b) (uridical antecedence, and (c) incurability# %t should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incogniti!e of the basic marital co!enants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage#$ )he intendment of the law, said the 'ourt, was to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity$ to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrati!e of an utter insensiti!ity or inability to gi!e meaning and significance to the marriage# %n $epu0lic of the Philippines s! Court of Appeals and Molina "#!$! No! %'12633 %3 Fe0ruary %((2-, the &upreme 'ourt laid down the following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code* (1) )he burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff# Any doubt should be resol!ed in fa!or of the e+istence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity# )his is rooted in the fact that both our 'onstitution and our laws cherish the !alidity of marriage and unity of the family (2) )he root cause of the psychological incapacity must be* (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently pro!en by e+perts and (d) clearly e+plained in the decision# )he incapacity must be psychological , not physical, although its manifestations and-or symptoms may be physical# )he e!idence must con!ince the court that the parties or one of them was mentally or psychically ill to such an e+tent that the person could not ha!e nown the obligations he was assuming, or nowing them, could not ha!e gi!en !alid assumption thereof# .+pert e!idence may be gi!en by /ualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists# (3) )he incapacity must be pro!en to be e+isting at the time of the celebration$ of the marriage# )he manifestation of the illness need not be percei!able at such time, but the illness itself must ha!e attached at such moment or prior to such moment# (0) )he incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable# &uch incurability may be absolute or e!en relati!e only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against

e!eryone of the same se+# 1urthermore, such incapacity must be rele!ant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, li e the e+ercise of a profession or employment in a (ob# (2) &uch illness must be gra!e enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage# )hus, mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts$ cannot be accepted as root causes# )he illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will# %n other words, there is a natal or super!ening disabling factor in the person, an ad!erse integral element in the personality structure that effecti!ely incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage# (3) )he essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 34 up to 51 of the 1amily 'ode as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 222 of the same 'ode in regard to parents and their children# &uch non6complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, pro!en by e!idence and included in the te+t of the decision# (5) %nterpretations gi!en by the 7ational Appellate 8atrimonial )ribunal of the 'atholic 'hurch in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisi!e, should be gi!en great respect by our courts# %n Marcos s! Marcos "#!$! No! %36*('3 %( 4cto0er &'''-, the &upreme 'ourt clarified that there is no re/uirement that the defendant-respondent spouse should be personally e+amined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity# %t is no longer necessary to introduce e+pert opinion in a petition under Article 33 of the 1amily 'ode if the totality of e!idence shows that psychological incapacity e+ists and its gra!ity, (uridical antecedence, and incurability can be duly established# "Sua5o s! Sua5o3 #!$! No! %6**(3) %' March &'%'%n 6e s! 6e "#!$! No! %6%2(3) %3 Fe0ruary &''(-, the &upreme 'ourt suggested the rela+ation of the stringent re/uirements of Molina "Sua5o s! Sua5o3 #!$! No! %6**(3) %' March &'%'-3 stressing that in applying the Molina standards, each case must be (udged, not on the basis of a prioriassumptions, predilections or generali"ations but according to its own facts, and that courts should interpret the pro!ision on a case6to6case basis, guided by e+perience, the findings of e+perts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals#

lawphil

Today is Thursday, May 30, 2013

Search

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST I!ISI"# G.R. No. 127358 March 31, 2005

NOEL BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner, $s% COURT OF APPEALS a ! "SABEL LUC"A S"NG# BUENAVENTURA, respondents% &'''''''''''''''''''& G.R. No. 127$$% March 31, 2005

NOEL BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner, $s% COURT OF APPEALS a ! "SABEL LUC"A S"NG# BUENAVENTURA, Respondents% ()ISI"# A&CUNA, J.' These cases in$ol$e a petition for the declaration of nullity of *arria+e, which was filed by petitioner #oel ,uena$entura on -uly 12, 1..2, on the +round of the alle+ed psycholo+ical incapacity of his wife, Isabel Sin+h ,uena$entura, herein respondent% /fter

respondent filed her answer, petitioner, with lea$e of court, a*ended his petition by statin+ that both he and his wife were psycholo+ically incapacitated to co*ply with the essential obli+ations of *arria+e% In response, respondent filed an a*ended answer denyin+ the alle+ation that she was psycholo+ically incapacitated% 1 "n -uly 31, 1..0, the Re+ional Trial )ourt pro*ul+ated a ecision, the dispositi$e portion of which reads1

23(R(F"R(, 4ud+*ent is hereby rendered as follows1 15 eclarin+ and decreein+ the *arria+e entered into between plaintiff #oel /% ,uena$entura and defendant Isabel 6ucia Sin+h ,uena$entura on -uly 7, 1.8., null and $oid ab initio9 25 "rderin+ the plaintiff to pay defendant *oral da*a+es in the a*ount of 2%0 *illion pesos and e&e*plary da*a+es of 1 *illion pesos with :; interest fro* the date of this decision plus attorney<s fees ofP100,000%009 35 "rderin+ the plaintiff to pay the defendant e&penses of liti+ation of P00,000%00, plus costs9 75 "rderin+ the li=uidation of the assets of the con4u+al partnership property>,? particularly the plaintiff<s separation@retire*ent benefits recei$ed fro* the Far (ast ,anA >and? Trust )o*pany>,? by cedin+, +i$in+ and payin+ to her fifty percent B00;5 of the net a*ount of P3,:80,330%8. or P1,C38,::8%C. to+ether with 12; interest per annu* fro* the date of this decision and one'half B1@25 of his outstandin+ shares of stocA with Manila Me*orial ParA and Pro$ident Droup of )o*panies9 05 "rderin+ hi* to +i$e a re+ular support in fa$or of his son -a$y Sin+h ,uena$entura in the a*ount ofP10,000%00 *onthly, sub4ect to *odification as the necessity arises9 :5 /wardin+ the care and custody of the *inor -a$y Sin+h ,uena$entura to his *other, the herein defendant9 and 85 3ereby authoriEin+ the defendant to re$ert bacA to the use of her *aiden fa*ily na*e Sin+h% 6et copies of this decision be furnished the appropriate ci$il re+istry and re+istries of properties% S" "R (R( %2 Petitioner appealed the abo$e decision to the )ourt of /ppeals% 2hile the case was pendin+ in the appellate court, respondent filed a *otion to increase the P10,000 *onthly support pendente lite of their son -a$y Sin+h ,uena$entura% Petitioner filed an opposition thereto, prayin+ that it be denied or that such incident be set for oral ar+u*ent% 3 "n Septe*ber 2, 1..:, the )ourt of /ppeals issued a Resolution increasin+ the support pendente lite toP20,000%7 Petitioner filed a *otion for reconsideration =uestionin+ the said Resolution% 0 "n "ctober C, 1..:, the appellate court pro*ul+ated a ecision dis*issin+ petitioner<s appeal for lacA of *erit and affir*in+ in toto the trial court<s decision%: Petitioner filed a *otion for reconsideration which was denied% Fro* the abo$e*entioned ecision, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Re$iew on Certiorari% "n #o$e*ber 13, 1..:, throu+h another Resolution, the )ourt of /ppeals denied petitioner<s *otion for reconsideration of the Septe*ber 2, 1..: Resolution, which increased the *onthly support for the son% 8 Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari to =uestion these two Resolutions%

"n -uly ., 1..8, the Petition for Re$iew on CertiorariC and the Petition for Certiorari. were ordered consolidated by this )ourt%10 In the Petition for Re$iew on Certiorari petitioner clai*s that the )ourt of /ppeals decided the case not in accord with law and 4urisprudence, thus1 1% 23(# IT /2/R ( (F(# /#T'/PP(66(( M"R/6 /M/D(S I# T3( /M"F#T "F P2%0 MI66I"# /# (G(MP6/RH /M/D(S "F P1 MI66I"#, 2IT3 :; I#T(R(ST FR"M T3( /T( "F ITS ()ISI"#, 2IT3"FT /#H 6(D/6 /# M"R/6 ,/SIS9 2% 23(# IT /2/R ( P100,000%00 /TT"R#(H<S F((S /# P00,000%00 (GP(#S(S "F 6ITID/TI"#, P6FS )"STS, T" (F(# /#T'/PP(66((, 2IT3"FT F/)TF/6 /# 6(D/6 ,/SIS9 3% 23(# IT "R (R( P6/I#TIFF'/PP(66/#T #"(6 T" P/H (F(# /#T'/PP(66(( "#('3/6F "RP1,C38,::8%C. "FT "F 3IS R(TIR(M(#T ,(#(FITS R()(I!( FR"M T3( F/R (/ST ,/#I /# TRFST )"%, 2IT3 12; I#T(R(ST T3(R("# FR"M T3( /T( "F ITS ()ISI"#, #"T2IT3ST/# I#D T3/T S/I R(TIR(M(#T ,(#(FITS /R( DR/TFIT"FS /# (G)6FSI!( PR"P(RTH "F #"(6, /# /6S" T" (6I!(R T" (F(# /#T'/PP(66(( "#('3/6F "F 3IS S3/R(S "F ST")I 2IT3 T3( M/#I6/ M(M"RI/6 P/RI /# T3( PR"!I (#T DR"FP "F )"MP/#I(S, /6T3"FD3 S/I S3/R(S "F ST")I 2(R( /)JFIR( ,H #"(6 ,(F"R( 3IS M/RRI/D( T" R(SP"# (#T IS/,(6 /# /R(, T3(R(F"R(, /D/I# 3IS (G)6FSI!( PR"P(RTI(S9 /# 7% 23(# IT /2/R ( (G)6FSI!( )/R( /# )FST" H "!(R T3( P/RTI(S< MI#"R )3I6 T" (F(# /#T'/PP(66(( 2IT3"FT /SII#D T3( )3I6 B23" 2/S /6R(/ H 13 H(/RS "6 /T T3/T TIM(5 3IS )3"I)( /S T" 23"M, ,(T2((# 3IS T2" P/R(#TS, 3( 2"F6 6II( T" 3/!( )FST" H "!(R 3IS P(RS"#%11 In the Petition for Certiorari, petitioner ad$ances the followin+ contentions1 T3( )"FRT "F /PP(/6S DR/!(6H /,FS( ITS IS)R(TI"# 23(# IT R(FFS( T" S(T R(SP"# (#T<S M"TI"# F"R I#)R(/S( SFPP"RT F"R T3( P/RTI(S< S"# F"R 3(/RI#D% 12 T3(R( 2/S #" #(( F"R T3( )"FRT "F /PP(/6S T" I#)R(/S( -/!H<S M"#T36H SFPP"RT "F P10,000%00 ,(I#D DI!(# ,H P(TITI"#(R (!(# /T PR(S(#T PRI)(S%13 I# R(S"6!I#D R(SP"# (#T<S M"TI"# F"R T3( I#)R(/S( "F -/!H<S SFPP"RT, T3( )"FRT "F /PP(/6S S3"F6 3/!( (G/MI#( T3( 6IST "F (GP(#S(S SF,MITT( ,H R(SP"# (#T I# T3( 6ID3T "F P(TITI"#(R<S ",-()TI"#S T3(R(T", I#ST(/ "F M(R(6H /SSFMI#D T3/T -/!H IS (#TIT6( T" / P0,000 I#)R(/S( I# SFPP"RT /S S/I /M"F#T IS KT"" MI#IM/6%K 17 6II(2IS(, T3( )"FRT "F /PP(/6S S3"F6 3/!( DI!(# P(TITI"#(R /# "PP"RTF#ITH T" PR"!( 3IS PR(S(#T I#)"M( T" S3"2 T3/T 3( )/##"T /FF"R T" I#)R(/S( -/!H<S SFPP"RT% 10 2ith re+ard to the first issue in the *ain case, the )ourt of /ppeals articulated1 "n /ssi+n*ent of (rror ), the trial court, after findin+s of fact ascertained fro* the testi*onies not only of the parties particularly the defendant'appellee but liAewise, those of the two psycholo+ists, awarded da*a+es on the basis of /rticles 21, 2218 and 222. of the )i$il )ode of the Philippines% Thus, the lower court found that plaintiff'appellant decei$ed the defendant'appellee into *arryin+ hi* by professin+ true lo$e instead of re$ealin+ to her that he was under hea$y parental pressure to *arry and that

because of pride he *arried defendant'appellee9 that he was not ready to enter into *arria+e as in fact his career was and always would be his first priority9 that he was unable to relate not only to defendant'appellee as a husband but also to his son, -a$y, as a father9 that he had no inclination to *aAe the *arria+e worA such that in ti*es of trouble, he chose the easiest way out, that of lea$in+ defendantLappellee and their son9 that he had no desire to Aeep defendant'appellee and their son as pro$ed by his reluctance and later, refusal to reconcile after their separation9 that the afore*entioned caused defendant'appellee to suffer *ental an+uish, an&iety, bes*irched reputation, sleepless ni+hts not only in those years the parties were to+ether but also after and throu+hout their separation% Plaintiff'appellant assails the trial court<s decision on the +round that unliAe those arisin+ fro* a breach in ordinary contracts, da*a+es arisin+ as a conse=uence of *arria+e *ay not be awarded% 2hile it is correct that there is, as yet, no decided case by the Supre*e )ourt where da*a+es by reason of the perfor*ance or non' perfor*ance of *arital obli+ations were awarded, it does not follow that no such award for da*a+es *ay be *ade% efendant'appellee, in her a*ended answer, specifically prayed for *oral and e&e*plary da*a+es in the total a*ount of 8 *illion pesos% The lower court, in the e&ercise of its discretion, found full 4ustification of awardin+ at least half of what was ori+inally prayed for% 2e find no reason to disturb the rulin+ of the trial court% 1: The award by the trial court of *oral da*a+es is based on /rticles 2218 and 21 of the )i$il )ode, which read as follows1 /RT% 2218% Moral da*a+es include physical sufferin+, *ental an+uish, fri+ht, serious an&iety, bes*irched reputation, wounded feelin+s, *oral shocA, social hu*iliation, and si*ilar in4ury% Thou+h incapable of pecuniary co*putation, *oral da*a+es *ay be reco$ered if they are the pro&i*ate result of the defendant<s wron+ful act or o*ission% /RT% 21% /ny person who wilfully causes loss or in4ury to another in a *anner that is contrary to *orals, +ood custo*s or public policy shall co*pensate the latter for the da*a+e% The trial court referred to /rticle 21 because /rticle 221. 18 of the )i$il )ode enu*erates the cases in which *oral da*a+es *ay be reco$ered and it *entions /rticle 21 as one of the instances% It *ust be noted that /rticle 21 states that the indi$idual *ust willfully cause loss or in4ury to another% There is a need that the act is willful and hence done in co*plete freedo*% In +rantin+ *oral da*a+es, therefore, the trial court and the )ourt of /ppeals could not but ha$e assu*ed that the acts on which the *oral da*a+es were based were done willfully and freely, otherwise the +rant of *oral da*a+es would ha$e no le+ to stand on% "n the other hand, the trial court declared the *arria+e of the parties null and $oid based on /rticle 3: of the Fa*ily )ode, due to psycholo+ical incapacity of the petitioner, #oel ,uena$entura% /rticle 3: of the Fa*ily )ode states1 / *arria+e contracted by any party who, at the ti*e of the celebration, was psycholo+ically incapacitated to co*ply with the essential *arital obli+ations of *arria+e, shall liAewise be $oid e$en if such incapacity beco*es *anifest only after its sole*niEation% Psycholo+ical incapacity has been defined, thus1 % % % no less than a *ental Bnot physical5 incapacity that causes a party to be (r)*+ , co- ,(,./ o0 (h/ 1a2,c 3ar,(a* co./ a (2 (ha( co co3,(a (*+ 3)2( 1/ a22)3/! a ! !,2char-/! 1+ (h/ 4ar(,/2 (o (h/ 3arr,a-/ which, as so e&pressed by /rticle :C of the Fa*ily )ode, include their *utual obli+ations to li$e to+ether, obser$e lo$e, respect and fidelity and render help and support% There is hardly any doubt that the intend*ent of the law has been to confine the *eanin+ of Kpsycholo+ical incapacityK to the *ost serious cases of personality disorders clearly de*onstrati$e of an )((/r , 2/ 2,(,.,(+ or , a1,*,(+ (o -,./ 3/a , - a !

2,- ,0,ca c/ (o (h/ 3arr,a-/. . . .1C The )ourt of /ppeals and the trial court considered the acts of the petitioner after the *arria+e as proof of his psycholo+ical incapacity, and therefore a product of his incapacity or inability to co*ply with the essential obli+ations of *arria+e% #e$ertheless, said courts considered these acts as willful and hence as +rounds for +rantin+ *oral da*a+es% It is contradictory to characteriEe acts as a product of psycholo+ical incapacity, and hence beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability, while at the sa*e ti*e considerin+ the sa*e set of acts as willful% ,y declarin+ the petitioner as psycholo+ically incapacitated, the possibility of awardin+ *oral da*a+es on the sa*e set of facts was ne+ated% The award of *oral da*a+es should be predicated, not on the *ere act of enterin+ into the *arria+e, but on specific e$idence that it was done deliberately and with *alice by a party who had Anowled+e of his or her disability and yet willfully concealed the sa*e% #o such e$idence appears to ha$e been adduced in this case% For the sa*e reason, since psycholo+ical incapacity *eans that one is truly inco+niti$e of the basic *arital co$enants that one *ust assu*e and dischar+e as a conse=uence of *arria+e, it re*o$es the basis for the contention that the petitioner purposely decei$ed the pri$ate respondent% If the pri$ate respondent was decei$ed, it was not due to a willful act on the part of the petitioner% Therefore, the award of *oral da*a+es was without basis in law and in fact% Since the +rant of *oral da*a+es was not proper, it follows that the +rant of e&e*plary da*a+es cannot stand since the )i$il )ode pro$ides that e&e*plary da*a+es are i*posed , a!!,(,o to *oral, te*perate, li=uidated or co*pensatory da*a+es% 1. 2ith respect to the +rant of attorney<s fees and e&penses of liti+ation the trial court e&plained, thus1 Re+ardin+ /ttorney<s fees, /rt% 220C of the )i$il )ode authoriEes an award of attorney<s fees and e&penses of liti+ation, other than 4udicial costs, when as in this case the plaintiff<s act or o*ission has co*pelled the defendant to liti+ate and to incur e&penses of liti+ation to protect her interest Bpar% 25, and where the )ourt dee*s it 4ust and e=uitable that attorney<s fees and e&penses of liti+ation should be reco$ered% Bpar% 115 20 The )ourt of /ppeals reasoned as follows1 "n /ssi+n*ent of (rror , as the award of *oral and e&e*plary da*a+es is fully 4ustified, the award of attorney<s fees and costs of liti+ation by the trial court is liAewise fully 4ustified% 21 The acts or o*issions of petitioner which led the lower court to deduce his psycholo+ical incapacity, and his act in filin+ the co*plaint for the annul*ent of his *arria+e cannot be considered as unduly co*pellin+ the pri$ate respondent to liti+ate, since both are +rounded on petitioner<s psycholo+ical incapacity, which as e&plained abo$e is a *ental incapacity causin+ an utter inability to co*ply with the obli+ations of *arria+e% 3ence, neither can be a +round for attorney<s fees and liti+ation e&penses% Further*ore, since the award of *oral and e&e*plary da*a+es is no lon+er 4ustified, the award of attorney<s fees and e&penses of liti+ation is left without basis% /nent the retire*ent benefits recei$ed fro* the Far (ast ,anA and Trust )o% and the shares of stocA in the Manila Me*orial ParA and the Pro$ident Droup of )o*panies, the trial court said1 The third issue that *ust be resol$ed by the )ourt is what to do with the assets of the con4u+al partnership in the e$ent of declaration of annul*ent of the *arria+e% The 3onorable Supre*e )ourt has held that the declaration of nullity of *arria+e carries ipso facto a 4ud+*ent for the li=uidation of property B o*in+o $% )ourt of /ppeals, et al%, D%R% #o% 107C1C, Sept% 18, 1..3, 22: S)R/, pp% 082 L 083, 0C:5% Thus, speaAin+ throu+h -ustice Flerida Ruth P% Ro*ero, it was ruled in this case1 2hen a *arria+e is declared void ab initio, the law states that the final 4ud+*ent therein shall pro$ide for the li=uidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the

co**on children and the deli$ery of their presu*pti$e le+iti*es, unless such *atters had been ad4udicated in the pre$ious proceedin+s% The parties here were le+ally *arried on -uly 7, 1.8., and therefore, all property ac=uired durin+ the *arria+e, whether the ac=uisition appears to ha$e been *ade, contracted or re+istered in the na*e of one or both spouses, is presu*ed to be con4u+al unless the contrary is pro$ed B/rt% 11:, #ew Fa*ily )ode9 /rt% 1:0, )i$il )ode5% /rt% 118 of the Fa*ily )ode enu*erates what are con4u+al partnership properties% /*on+ others they are the followin+1 15 Those ac=uired by onerous title durin+ the *arria+e at the e&pense of the co**on fund, whether the ac=uisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses9 25 Those obtained fro* the labor, industry, worA or profession of either or both of the spouses9 35 The fruits, natural, industrial, or ci$il, due or recei$ed durin+ the *arria+e fro* the co**on property, as well as the net fruits fro* the e&clusi$e property of each spouse% % % % /pplyin+ the fore+oin+ le+al pro$isions, and without pre4udice to re=uirin+ an in$entory of what are the parties< con4u+al properties and what are the e&clusi$e properties of each spouse, it was disclosed durin+ the proceedin+s in this case that the plaintiff who worAed first as ,ranch Mana+er and later as !ice'President of Far (ast ,anA M Trust )o% recei$ed separation@retire*ent pacAa+e fro* the said banA in the a*ount of P3,801,000%00 which after certain deductions a*ountin+ to P2:,1:7%21 +a$e hi* a net a*ount ofP3,:80,330%8. and actually paid to hi* on -anuary ., 1..0 B(&hs% :, 8, C, ., 10, 115% #ot ha$in+ shown debts or obli+ations other than those deducted fro* the said retire*ent@separation pay, under /rt% 12. of the Fa*ily )ode KThe net re*ainder of the con4u+al partnership properties shall constitute the profits, which shall be di$ided e=ually between husband and wife, unless a different proportion or di$ision was a+reed upon in the *arria+e settle*ent or unless there has been a $oluntary wai$er or forfeiture of such share as pro$ided in this )ode%K In this particular case, howe$er, there had been no *arria+e settle*ent between the parties, nor had there been any $oluntary wai$er or $alid forfeiture of the defendant wife<s share in the con4u+al partnership properties% The pre$ious cession and transfer by the plaintiff of his one'half B1@25 share in their residential house and lot co$ered by T%)%T% #o% S'30:C0 of the Re+istry of eeds of ParaNa=ue, Metro Manila, in fa$or of the defendant as stipulated in their )o*pro*ise /+ree*ent dated -uly 12, 1..3, and appro$ed by the )ourt in its Partial ecision dated /u+ust :, 1..3, was actually intended to be in full settle*ent of any and all de*ands for past support% In reality, the defendant wife had allowed so*e concession in fa$or of the plaintiff husband, for were the law strictly to be followed, in the process of li=uidation of the con4u+al assets, the con4u+al dwellin+ and the lot on which it is situated shall, unless otherwise a+reed upon by the parties, be ad4udicated to the spouse with who* their only child has chosen to re*ain B/rt% 12., par% .5% 3ere, what was done was one'half B1@25 portion of the house was ceded to defendant so that she will not clai* any*ore for past unpaid support, while the other half was transferred to their only child as his presu*pti$e le+iti*e% )onse=uently, nothin+ yet has been +i$en to the defendant wife by way of her share in the con4u+al properties, and it is but 4ust, lawful and fair, that she be +i$en one'half B1@25 share of the separation@retire*ent benefits recei$ed by the plaintiff the sa*e bein+ part of their con4u+al partnership properties ha$in+ been obtained or deri$ed fro* the labor, industry, worA or profession of said defendant husband in accordance with /rt% 118, par% 2 of the Fa*ily )ode% For the sa*e reason, she is entitled to one'half B1@25 of the outstandin+ shares of stocA of the plaintiff husband with the Manila Me*orial ParA and the Pro$ident Droup of )o*panies% 22 The )ourt of /ppeals articulated on this *atter as follows1 "n /ssi+n*ent of (rror (, plaintiff'appellant assails the order of the trial court for hi* to +i$e one'half of his separation@retire*ent benefits fro* Far (ast ,anA M Trust )o*pany and half of his outstandin+ shares in Manila

Me*orial ParA and Pro$ident Droup of )o*panies to the defendant'appellee as the latter<s share in the con4u+al partnership% "n /u+ust :, 1..3, the trial court rendered a Partial ecision appro$in+ the )o*pro*ise /+ree*ent entered into by the parties% In the sa*e )o*pro*ise /+ree*ent, the parties had a+reed that henceforth, their con4u+al partnership is dissol$ed% Thereafter, no steps were taAen for the li=uidation of the con4u+al partnership% Findin+ that defendant'appellee is entitled to at least half of the separation@retire*ent benefits which plaintiff' appellant recei$ed fro* Far (ast ,anA M Trust )o*pany upon his retire*ent as !ice'President of said co*pany for the reason that the benefits accrued fro* plaintiffLappellant<s ser$ice for the banA for a nu*ber of years, *ost of which while he was *arried to defendant'appellee, the trial court ad4udicated the sa*e% The sa*e is true with the outstandin+ shares of plaintiff'appellant in Manila Me*orial ParA and Pro$ident Droup of )o*panies% /s these were ac=uired by the plaintiff'appellant at the ti*e he was *arried to defendant'appellee, the latter is entitled to one'half thereof as her share in the con4u+al partnership% 2e find no reason to disturb the rulin+ of the trial court%23 Since the present case does not in$ol$e the annul*ent of a bi+a*ous *arria+e, the pro$isions of /rticle 00 in relation to /rticles 71, 72 and 73 of the Fa*ily )ode, pro$idin+ for the dissolution of the absolute co**unity or con4u+al partnership of +ains, as the case *ay be, do not apply% Rather, the +eneral rule applies, which is that in case a *arria+e is declared $oid ab initio, the property re+i*e applicable and to be li=uidated, partitioned and distributed is that of e=ual co'ownership% In Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon Cit ,27 this )ourt e&pounded on the conse=uences of a $oid *arria+e on the property relations of the spouses and specified the applicable pro$isions of law1 The trial court correctly applied the law% In a $oid *arria+e, re+ardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties durin+ the period of cohabitation is +o$erned by the pro$isions of /rticle 178 or /rticle 17C, such as the case *ay be, of the Fa*ily )ode% /rticle 178 is a re*aAe of /rticle 177 of the )i$il )ode as interpreted and so applied in pre$ious cases9 it pro$ides1 /RT% 178% 2hen a *an and a wo*an who are capacitated to *arry each other, li$e e&clusi$ely with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of *arria+e or under a $oid *arria+e, their wa+es and salaries shall be owned by the* in e=ual shares and the property ac=uired by both of the* throu+h their worA or industry shall be +o$erned by the rules on co'ownership% In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties ac=uired while they li$ed to+ether shall be presu*ed to ha$e been obtained by their 4oint efforts, worA or industry, and shall be owned by the* in e=ual shares% For purposes of this /rticle, a party who did not participate in the ac=uisition by the other party of any property shall be dee*ed to ha$e contributed 4ointly in the ac=uisition thereof if the for*erOs efforts consisted in the care and *aintenance of the fa*ily and of the household% #either party can encu*ber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property ac=uired durin+ cohabitation and owned in co**on, without the consent of the other, until after the ter*ination of their cohabitation% 2hen only one of the parties to a $oid *arria+e is in +ood faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co'ownership shall be forfeited in fa$or of their co**on children% In case of default of or wai$er by any or all of the co**on children or their descendants, each $acant share shall belon+ to the respecti$e sur$i$in+ descendants% In the absence of descendants, such share shall belon+ to the innocent party% In all cases, the forfeiture shall taAe place upon ter*ination of the cohabitation%

This peculiar Aind of co'ownership applies when a *an and a wo*an, sufferin+ no le+al i*pedi*ent to *arry each other, so e&clusi$ely li$e to+ether as husband and wife under a $oid *arria+e or without the benefit of *arria+e% The ter* KcapacitatedK in the pro$ision Bin the first para+raph of the law5 refers to the legal capacit of a party to contract *arria+e, i%e%, any K*ale or fe*ale of the a+e of ei+hteen years or upwards not under any of the i*pedi*ents *entioned in /rticles 38 and 3CK of the )ode% Fnder this property re+i*e, property ac=uired by both spouses throu+h their !or" and industr shall be +o$erned by the rules on e=ual co'ownership% /ny property ac=uired durin+ the union is pri*a facie presu*ed to ha$e been obtained throu+h their 4oint efforts% / party who did not participate in the ac=uisition of the property shall still be considered as ha$in+ contributed thereto 4ointly if said partyOs Kefforts consisted in the care and *aintenance of the fa*ily household%K FnliAe the con4u+al partnership of +ains, the fruits of the coupleOs separate property are not included in the co'ownership% /rticle 178 of the Fa*ily )ode, in substance and to the abo$e e&tent, has clarified /rticle 177 of the )i$il )ode9 in addition, the law now e&pressly pro$ides that P Ba5 #either party can dispose or encu*ber by act>s? inter $i$os >of? his or her share in co'ownership property, without the consent of the other, durin+ the period of cohabitation9 and Bb5 In the case of a $oid *arria+e, any party in bad faith shall forfeit his or her share in the co'ownership in fa$or of their co**on children9 in default thereof or wai$er by any or all of the co**on children, each $acant share shall belon+ to the respecti$e sur$i$in+ descendants, or still in default thereof, to the innocent party% The forfeiture shall taAe place upon the ter*ination of the cohabitation or declaration of nullity of the *arria+e% Q In decidin+ to taAe further co+niEance of the issue on the settle*ent of the partiesO co**on property, the trial court acted neither i*prudently nor precipitately9 a court which had 4urisdiction to declare the *arria+e a nullity *ust be dee*ed liAewise clothed with authority to resol$e incidental and conse=uential *atters% #or did it co**it a re$ersible error in rulin+ that petitioner and pri$ate respondent own the Kfa*ily ho*eK and all their co**on property in e#ual shares, as well as in concludin+ that, in the li=uidation and partition of the property owned in co**on by the*, the pro$isions on co'ownership under the )i$il )ode, not /rticles 00, 01 and 02, in relation to /rticles 102 and 12., of the Fa*ily )ode, should aptly pre$ail% The rules set up to +o$ern the li=uidation of either the absolute co**unity or the con4u+al partnership of +ains, the property re+i*es reco+niEed for $alid and $oidable *arria+es Bin the latter case until the contract is annulled5, are irrele$ant to the li=uidation of the co' ownership that e&ists between co**on'law spouses% The first para+raph of /rticle 00 of the Fa*ily )ode, applyin+ para+raphs B25, B35, B75 and B05 of /rticle 73, relates only, by its e&plicit ter*s, to voidable *arria+es and, e&ceptionally, to void *arria+es under /rticle 70 of the )ode, i%e%, the declaration of nullity of a subse=uent *arria+e contracted by a spouse of a prior $oid *arria+e before the latter is 4udicially declared $oid% The latter is a special rule that so*ehow reco+niEes the philosophy and an old doctrine that $oid *arria+es are ine&istent fro* the $ery be+innin+ and no 4udicial decree is necessary to establish their nullity% In now re=uirin+ for purposes of re$arriage, the declaration of nullity by final 4ud+*ent of the pre$iously contracted $oid *arria+e, the present law ai*s to do away with any continuin+ uncertainty on the status of the second *arria+e% It is not then illo+ical for the pro$isions of /rticle 73, in relation to /rticles 71 and 72, of the Fa*ily )ode, on the effects of the ter*ination of a subse=uent *arria+e contracted durin+ the subsistence of a pre$ious *arria+e to be *ade applicable pro hac vice% In all other cases, it is not to be assu*ed that the law has also *eant to ha$e coincident property relations, on the one hand, between spouses in $alid and $oidable *arria+es Bbefore annul*ent5 and, on the other, between co**on'law spouses or spouses of $oid *arria+es, lea$in+ to ordain, in the latter case, the ordinary rules on co'ownership sub4ect to the pro$ision of /rticle 178 and /rticle 17C of the Fa*ily )ode% It *ust be stressed, ne$ertheless, e$en as it *ay *erely state the ob$ious, that the pro$isions of the Fa*ily )ode on the Kfa*ily ho*e,K i%e%, the pro$isions found in Title !, )hapter 2, of the Fa*ily )ode, re*ain in force and effect

re+ardless of the property re+i*e of the spouses%20 Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a =uo were found, both by the trial court and the )ourt of /ppeals, to ha$e been ac=uired durin+ the union of the parties, the sa*e would be co$ered by the co'ownership% #o fruits of a separate property of one of the parties appear to ha$e been included or in$ol$ed in said distribution% The li=uidation, partition and distribution of the properties owned in co**on by the parties herein as ordered by the court a #uo should, therefore, be sustained, but on the basis of co'ownership and not of the re+i*e of con4u+al partnership of +ains% /s to the issue on custody of the parties o$er their only child, -a$y Sin+h ,uena$entura, it is now *oot since he is about to turn twenty'fi$e years of a+e on May 28, 20002: and has, therefore, attained the a+e of *a4ority% 2ith re+ard to the issues on support raised in the Petition for Certiorari, these would also now be *oot, owin+ to the fact that the son, -a$y Sin+h ,uena$entura, as pre$iously stated, has attained the a+e of *a4ority% 5#EREFORE, the ecision of the )ourt of /ppeals dated "ctober C, 1..: and its Resolution dated ece*ber 10, 1..: which are contested in the Petition for Re$iew BD%R% #o% 12877.5, are hereby M" IFI( , in that the award of *oral and e&e*plary da*a+es, attorney<s fees, e&penses of liti+ation and costs are deleted% The order +i$in+ respondent one'half of the retire*ent benefits of petitioner fro* Far (ast ,anA and Trust )o% and one'half of petitioner<s shares of stocA in Manila Me*orial ParA and in the Pro$ident Droup of )o*panies is 2)2(a, /! 1)( o (h/ 1a2,2 o0 (h/ *,6),!a(,o , 4ar(,(,o a ! !,2(r,1)(,o o0 (h/ co7 o8 /r2h,4 a ! o( o0 (h/ r/-,3/ o0 co 9)-a* 4ar( /r2h,4 o0 -a, 2% The rest of said ecision and Resolution are /FFIRM( % The Petition for Re$iew on Certiorari BD%R% #o% 12830C5 contestin+ the )ourt of /ppeals< Resolutions of Septe*ber 2, 1..: and #o$e*ber 13, 1..: which increased the support pendente lite in fa$or of the parties< son, -a$y Sin+h ,uena$entura, is now M""T and /)/ (MI) and is, accordin+ly, ISMISS( % #o costs% SO OR:ERE:. %avide, &r., C.&., 'Chair$an(, Quisu$bing, )nares*+antiago, and Carpio, &&., concur%

Foo( o(/2
1

Rollo BD%R% #o%12877.5, p% 07% Rollo BD%R% #o% 12877.5, p% 8:% Rollo BD%R% #o% 12830C5, pp% 8'C% ,d. at 13:% ,d. at 13C% ,d. at 177% ,d% at 103%

D%R% #o% 12877.% D%R% #o% 12830C% Rollo BD%R% #o% 12877.5, p% 100% ,d. at 32% Rollo BD% R% #o%12830C5 p% 11% ,d. at 10% ,d. at 18% ,d. at 20% Rollo BD%R% #o% 12877.5, pp% C1'C2% /RT% 221.% Moral da*a+es *ay be reco$ered in the followin+ and analo+ous cases1 B15 / cri*inal offense resultin+ in physical in4uries9 B25 Juasi'delicts causin+ physical in4uries9 B35 Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lasci$ious acts9 B75 /dultery or concubina+e9 B05 Ille+al or arbitrary detention or arrest9 B:5 Ille+al search9 B85 6ibel, slander or any other for* of defa*ation9 BC5 Malicious prosecution9 B.5 /cts *entioned in article 30.9 B105 /cts and actions referred to in articles 21, 2:, 28, 2C, 2., 30, 32, 37, and 30% %%%

10

11

12

13

17

10

1:

18

1C

Santos $% )ourt of /ppeals, D%R% #o% 11201., 7 -anuary 1..0, 270 S)R/ 20, 37% (*phasis supplied%

/rticle 222.% (&e*plary or correcti$e da*a+es are i*posed by way of e&a*ple or correction for the public +ood, in addition to the *oral, te*perate, li=uidated or co*pensatory da*a+es%
1.

20

Rollo BD%R% #o% 12877.5, p% :8% ,d. at C2% Rollo BD%R% #o% 12877.5, pp% :. '81% ,d. at C2'C3% D%R% #o% 12287., 31 -uly 1..:, 2:0 S)R/ 221% ,d. at 22:'237% B(*phasis in the ori+inal%5 -a$y Sin+h ,uena$entura was born on May 28, 1.C09 Rollo BD%R% #o% 12877.5, p% 0:%

21

22

23

27

20

2:

The 6awphil Pro4ect ' /rellano 6aw Foundation

http://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_209_1987.html