TOPIC: Property Regimes of Marriage

G.R. No. 122749 31 July 1996

TITLE: VALDES petitioner-appellee, vs. QC-RTC, respondent-appellant.
PONENTE: Vitug, J.
NATURE OF ACTION: Petition for Review
FACTS:
- Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married in 1971 and begotten 5 children. Valdez filed a petition in
1992 for a declaration of nullity of their marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code, which was granted
hence, marriage is null and void on the ground of their mutual psychological incapacity.
- Stella and Joaquin are placed under the custody of their mother while the other 3 siblings are free to choose
which they prefer.
- Gomez sought a clarification of that portion in the decision regarding the procedure for the liquidation of
common property in “unions without marriage”.
- During the hearing on the motion, the children filed a joint affidavit expressing desire to stay with their father.

ISSUES:

- Whether or not the property regime should be based on co-ownership.

HELD:

- 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.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

- WHEREFORE, the questioned orders, dated 05 May 1995 and 30 October 1995, of the trial court are AFFIRMED.
No costs.SO ORDERED.