15. Ocampo v Ocampo Gr 198908

Civil Law – Persons and Family Relations

G.R. No. 198908

August 3, 2015

VIRGINIA OCAMPO - versus - DEOGRACIO OCAMPO Facts On January 22, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision declaring the marriage between Virginia and Deogracio Ocampo as null and void from the beginning under rticle 3! of the "amily #ode $on the ground of psychological incapacity%&

On 'arch 31, 1999, the trial court directed the parties to submit a pro(ect of partition of their  invent inventori oried ed proper propertie ties& s& )aving )aving failed failed to agree agree on a pro(ec pro(ectt of parti partitio tion n of their their con(uga con(ugall  properties, hearing ensued and the trial court rendered the assailed Order stating that the  properties declared by the parties belong to each one of them on a *+*+ sharing& -hether respondent should be deprived deprived of his share in the con(ugal partnership partnership of gains Issu! -hether  by reason of bad faith and psychological perversity& Ru"#$g .he #ourt held that in a void marriage, as in those declared void under rticle 3! of the "amily #ode, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed either by rticle 1/0 or rticle 1/ of the "amily #ode& rticle 1/0 of the "amily #ode applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage but without the benefit of marriage or whose marriage is nonetheless void, as in this case& rticle 1/0 states that their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in eual shares and the property acuired by both of them through their wor or industry shall be governed by the rules on #OO-4567)8&  In the absence abs ence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be  presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be b e owned by them them in equal shares. shares. For purposes purposes of Article Article 1!, a party party who did not particip participate ate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former"s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the  family and of the household.

rticle 11! e:pressly provides that the presumption remains even if the property is ;registered in the name of one or both of the spouses&; 7ince as a rule, even a plain housewife who stays all the time in the house and taes claim that the seed money was provided by her mother and had it not been for that the properties could not have been acuired& .he #ourt is not prone to believe because of  insufficient evidence to prove such contention but petitioner>s selfserving allegations& Of course, attempts to establish respondent as an irresponsible and unfaithful husband, as well as family man were made but the testimonies adduced failed to fully convince the #ourt that respondent should be punished by depriving him of his share of the con(ugal property because of his indiscretion&