Gue vs Republic

GUE vs REPUBLIC No. L-14058 March 24, 1960 Petitioner and appellant: Angelina L. Gue Oppositor and appellee: Republic of the Philippines Nature of the case: Appeal from the order of the CFI of Manila POnente: Montemayor, J. Issue: Facts: 1) Appeal from an an order order of the the CFI Manila dismissing the petition petition of Angelina Angelina Gue

2) 3)

Oct 11, 1944: married to William Gue and had a child Anthony Gue; another child Eulogio

on January 5, 1946 her husband left Manila and went to Shanghai China but since then had not been heard of, neither had he written to her nor in any way communicated with her and she failed to locate him despite of her efforts and diligence 4) they had had not not acquire acquired d any prope property rty durin during g the marri marriage age 5) she asked the the court for for a declaration declaration of of the presumption presumption of death death of William William gue (Art (Art 390 of the the CC) CFI: after publication and hearing, issued the order of dismissal no right right had been been establi established shed by the the petiti petitioner oner upon upon which which a judicia judiciall decree decree may be predic predicate ated d and this this action is not for settlement of the estate of the absentee as it is clear he did not leave any

-

* A judicial presumption even if final and executor, would still be a prima facie presumption only and it still disputable—it is for this reason that it cannot be a subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration— proof of actual death would still have to be determined 6) Appealed Appealed-- invoked invoked the provision provisions s of Art 390 of the New Civil Civil Code—abse Code—absence nce of 7 years—for years—for successio succession n shall not be presumed dead till after an absence of 10 years 7) Accordin According g to appellant appellant with promulga promulgatio tion n of the NCC in 1950, the courts courts are now authorize authorized d to declare persons presumptively dead SOLICITOR GENERAL:opposed to the petition; same reason as above (*) SC: the appeal order dismissing the petition is AFFIRMED

ARMAS vs. CALISTERIO GR NO. 136467 April 6, 2000 Petitioner: Antonia Armas Y Calisterio Respondent: Marietta Calisterio Nature of the case: Petition on certiorari of a decision of the CA Ponente: Vitug, J. Issue: Issue: Validit Validity y of the marriage marriage between between deceased deceased Teodorico Teodorico and respond respondent ent Marriet Marrieta, a, that in turn turn would would be determinative of her right as a surviving spouse Facts:

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

7)

8)

9)

April 24, 1992: Teodorico Calisterio died intestate leaving several parcels of land (value: P604,750.00) He was survive survived d by his wife (respo (responden ndentt- Mariett Marietta a Calisteri Calisterio) o) Teodorico Teodorico was second second husband husband of Marietta—marrie Marietta—married d previously previously to James James William William Bound Bound (jan 13, 1946) James James Bound Bound disapp disappeare eared d w/o trace trace on Februar February y 11, 1947 1947 11 years later later Mariett Marietta a and teodorico teodorico were were married married (may 8, 1958) w/o Mariett Marietta a having secured secured a court court declaration that James was presumptively dead Oct 9, 1992: petitione petitioner, r, surviving surviving sister sister of teodorico teodorico filed filed with RTC of of QC a petition petition entitled entitled “In the Matter Matter of Intestate Estate of the Deceased Teodorico Calisterio y Cacabelos, Cacabelos, Antonia Armas, petitioner” petitioner” claiming to be the sole surviving heir of the deceased- marriage between Marietta and Teodorico as bigamous thereby null and void Prayed Prayed that her son son Sinfronian Sinfroniano o C. Armas Jr. be appointe appointed d administr administrato atorr w/o bond of the estate estate of the deceased and that the inheritance be adjudicated to her after all the obligations of the estate would have been settled mArie mAriett tta a oppos opposed ed the petit petitio ion—f n—firs irstt marria marriage ge w/ Bound Bound had had been been disso dissolve lved d due due to his absen absence ce,, whereabouts whereabouts being unknown—contend unknown—contends s to be the surviving spouse of teodorico teodorico and sought priority in the administration of the estate of the decedent RTC: RTC: issued issued order order appoint appointing ing Sinfroni Sinfroniano ano C. Armas Armas Jr and respond respondent ent Mariett Marietta a administ administrato ratorr and administratix of the intestate estate of teodorico Marie Mariett tta a appea appealed led the the decis decisio ion n to CA CA CA: decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered a) mAriett mArietta a Calister Calisterio’s io’s marria marriage ge with with teodorico teodorico remai remains ns valid valid b) house and lot lot situated situated as 32 Batangas Batangas St San San Francisco del del Monte Monte QC belong to conjugal conjugal partnership partnership property c) marriet marrieta a Calisterio Calisterio being being teodorico’ teodorico’s s compulsory compulsory heir is entitled entitled to one half of husband husband’s ’s estate and sister of Teodorico the other half 

d)

-

ordered TC to determine competence of MArrieta Calisterio to act as administrator of Teodorico’s estate CA deni denied ed mot motio ion n for for rec recon onsi side dera rati tion on

SC DECISION: Assailed judgment of the CA is AFFIRMED except in so far only as it decreed in par © of the dispositive portion thereof that the children of petitioner are likewise entitled, along with her to the other half of the inheritance in lieu of which it is DECLARED that said one-half share of the decedent’s estate pertains solely to the petitioner to the exclusion of her children REASONS: 1) Marriage happened in 1958—law 1958—law in force force at that time time was the Civil Civil Code not not the family code code 2) Art 83 of the the new Civil Civil Code—retroacti Code—retroactive ve only when when it would not prejudice prejudice ort impair impair vested vested acquired rights in accordance wit Civil code and other laws 3) A judicial declaration declaration of absence absence of the the absentee absentee spouse is not necessary necessary as long as the the prescribed prescribed period period of absence is met. It is equally noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are, by the explicit mandate of Art 83 to be deemed valid “until declared null and void by a competent competent court”—the burden of  proof would be, in these cases, on the party assailing the second marriage 4) Mariett Marietta’s a’s first first husba husband, nd, James James Willi William am Bounds Bounds had had been absent absent or had had disapp disappeare eared d for than than eleve eleven n years before she entered into second marriage—second marriage—second marriage having been contracted during the regime of the Civl Code, should thus be deemed valid notwithstanding the absence of judicial declaration of presumptive death of james Bounds 5) Conjugal Conjugal proper property ty of Teodoric Teodorico o and Mariett Marietta a pertains pertains to them them in common— common—upo upon n its dissolut dissolution, ion, the the property should rightly be divided in two equal portions—one portion going to surviving spouse and the other to the estate of the deceased spouse 6) Appellat Appellate e court erred in granting granting to petitio petitioner’ ner’s s childre children, n, along with with their mother mother Antonia Antonia who herself is invoking successional rights over the estate of deceased brother

 JONES vs. HORTIGUELA No. 43701 March 6, 1937 petitioner-appellant: Angelita Jones Oppositor-Appellant and appellee: Felix hortiguela as administrator, widower and heir Nature of the case: appeal from an order of the CFI of cebu Ponente: Concepcion, J. Issue: WON Felix Hortiguela’s alleged marriage to marciana Escano was celebrated Facts:

1)

2) 3) 4) 5)

6) 7)

8) 9)

CFI of Cebu denying: a) motion to appoint a new administrator administrator and b) to set aside the order declaring the heirs of deceased; c) holding it unwarranted to declare that the properties of the intestate estate are parapher paraphernal nal properties properties of deceased deceased but reservin reserving g to the parties parties the right right to discuss which of said proper properti ties es are parah paraher ernal nal and and which which are are conju conjugal gal and d) setti setting ng aside aside the the order order granti granting ng to the administrator fees in the sum of P10,000 and that order approving the project of partition and the final account an e) ordering the presentation of another project partition and final account Marcian Marciana a Escano died intestate intestate—wi —widow dower er Felix Felix Hortigue Hortiguela la was appointe appointed d judicia judiciall admisnit admisnitrat rator or of her entire estate Order Order (may 9, 1932)—angel 1932)—angelita ita Jones Jones (daughter (daughter bu her first marriag marriage) e) and Felix (widowe (widowerr by he second second marriage) were declared only heirs Felix Felix prayed prayed that that his fees fees as admin administ istrat rator or be fixed fixed at P10000 P10000 (gran (grante ted d by court court and confo conformi rmity ty of  guardian of heiress Angelita) Admin: Admin: presented presented invento inventory ry of propert propertied ied left by deceased, deceased, a final account account of his administ administrat ration ion and a project of partition of the intestate estate He adjud adjudica icate ted d to himsel himselff a part part of the the estat estate, e, in payme payment nt of the the conju conjugal gal propert propertie ies s and and of his usufructuary right and the remaining part to Angelita Jones—represented by guardian Paz Escano de Corominas since a minor then Project Project of partitio partition n and final account account was approved approved and properti properties es were turned turned over to the respectiv respective e grantees MAy 3, 1934: heirees Angelita, Angelita, married to Ernesto lardizabal, lardizabal, filed a motion alleging alleging that she was the only heir of her mother—no valid marriage between mother and felix (or it was null and void)

She prayed for: 1) reopening of the proceedings; 2) her husband be appointed special administrator w/o bond; 3) her mother’ s alleged marriage to Felix be declared null and void and 4) that the partition of the properties made by felix be declared null and void and that petitioner be declared the only universal heir of the deceased deceased;; and 5) if marriage marriage be a valid valid marriage marriage,, Hortigu Hortiguela ela be declared declared not entitled entitled to the widower’s widower’s usufruct; the errors in the admin account be corrected; the latter be granted a remuneration of  only P4 a day and a new partition of the properties be made 10) 1914: Marciana Marciana Escano married married Arthur Arthur Jones in San NIcolas NIcolas Province Province of Cebu 11) Jan 10, 1918: Jones secured passport passport to go abroad and therafter therafter nothing nothing was heard of him

12) October October 1919: proceedin proceedings gs were institu instituted ted in the CFI of Maasin Maasin Leyte to have her husband husband judicial judicially ly declared an absentee—court absentee—court issued an order declaring Jones an absentee from Phil Islands (Art 186 of the CC) 13) April 23, 1921: court issued another order order for the taking effect if the declaration declaration of absence, publication publication made in the OG and in EL Ideal 14) May 6, 1927: Felix Felix Hortguela Hortguela married married to MArciana MArciana Escano Escano 15) Angelita contends: contends: declaration declaration of absence must be understood understood to have been made made not in the order of Oct 1919 but April 1921—only 6 years and 14 days elapsed—marriage null and void DECISION OF THE SC: Court REVERSED the appealed order REASONS:

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

For the purpose of civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee absentee—th —this is declara declaratio tion n made made was only to the necessar necessary y precauti precautions ons for the administ administrati ration on of the estate of the absentee For civil marriage—the marriage—the only only requirement requirement is that the former former spouse spouse has been absent absent for seven consecutive consecutive years at the time of the second marriage Absence counted counted from from January January 10, 1918 1918 to May May 6, 1927—nine 1927—nine years years elapsed-marriage elapsed-marriage is valid valid and lawful lawful Although no no marriage marriage contract contract appearing appearing in the marriage marriage register register of the Municipalit Municipality y of Malitbog—does Malitbog—does not not invalidate the marriage Marcian Marciana a Escano Escano believed believed husband husband was was dead when she she contract contracted ed marriage marriage Marriah Marriahe e was valid—no valid—nott doubt Felix Felix is entitled entitled to inherit inherit in usufruct usufruct,, not only in testate testate but also also in the intestate succession No reason reason to annul annul the order order of May May 9, 1932 declaring declaring the heirs heirs were widower widower and and daughter daughter and the the order of June 26, 1933 approving the partition of the properties of the intestate estate

8)

Fees to administrator P10000 reasonable and moderate compensation—used also to pay professional fees of the lawyer 9) Orders Orders have become become final final on the ground ground that no appeal appeal was ever taken taken therefr therefrom, om, the court court has lost  jurisdiction over the case

LUKBAN vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES No L- 8492 February 29, 1956 Petitioner and appellant: Lourdes G. Lukban Oppositor and Appellee: RP Nature of the Case: Appeal from an order of the CFI of Rizal Ponente: Bautista Angelo J. Issue: Facts:

1)

CFI to declare that petitioner is a widow of her husband Francisco Chuidian who is presumed to be dead and has no legal impediment to contract a subsequent marriage 2) Lourdes Lukban Lukban contracte contracted d marriage with Francisco Francisco Chuidian Chuidian December 10, 1933 (paco Manila) Manila) 3) Dec 27 same year year husband husband left after after violent violent quarrel quarrel and and since then then he has not been heard heard from despit despite e diligent search made by her 4) She believe believes s he has been dead being being absent absent for more more than 20 years years and because because she intends intends to marry marry again, she desires that her civil status be defined in order that she may be relieved of any liability under law CFI: petition cannot be entertained because not authorized by law—much less can the court determine the status of  petitioner as a widow since this matter must of necessity depend upon the fact of death of the husband—court can declare upon proper evidence but not decree that he is merely presumed to be dead SOLICITOR GENERAL: opposed the petition on the ground that the same is not authorized by law CFI: sustained the opposition and dismissed the petition DECISION OF SC: decision appealed from is AFFIRMED REASONS:

1)

A judicial pronouncement to that effect, even if final and executor would still be  prima facie presumption only. It is still disputable. It is for that reason that it cannot be subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration

2)

Art 349 of penal code—Proceedings code—Proceedings referred to here refers only to those authorized authorized by law such as those which refer to administration or settlement of the estate of the deceased person (jones vs HOrtiguela)

SSS vs. JARQUE Vda. De BAILON GR NO. 165545 March 24, 2006 Petitioner: SSS

Respondent: Teresita Jarque Vda. De Bailon Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J. Issue: Facts:

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

CA reversed decision of SSC April 25, 1955: 1955: marriage marriage of Clemente Clemente G. Bailon Bailon and and Alice Alice P. P. Diaz in Barcelona, Barcelona, Sorsogon More More than 15 years years late later: r: October October 9, 9, 1970: Bailo Bailon n filed filed before before CFI of Sorsog Sorsogon on petit petition ion to declar declare e Alice Alice presumptively dead Dec 10, 10, 1970: 1970: CFI CFI gran grante ted d the pet petit itio ion n After almost almost 13 years: Bailon Bailon contracted contracted marriage with Teresita Teresita Jarque Jarque in casiguran casiguran Sorsogon Sorsogon Jan 30, 1998, 1998, bailon, bailon, member member of of SSS since since 1980 and and a retiree retiree pensione pensionerr died Respondent Respondent filed claim claim for funeral funeral benefits benefits and was granted granted P12,000 P12,000 by SSS and additiona additionall claim for death death benefits granted on April 6, 1998

8)

Cecilia Bailon-Yap, claimed to be a daughter of Bailon and one Elisa jayona contested before the SSS the release to respondent of the death and funeral benefits—claims benefits—claims Bailon contracted three marriages (Alice, mother or elisa and respondent—all are still alive) 9) Elisa claimed claimed that that their mother and Bailon Bailon cohabited cohabited together together as as husband and wide wide since (1958) (1958) 10) Hermes P. Diaz brother brother of Alice filed filed before SSS a claim claim for death death benefits

11) 12)

Elisa and seven of her children also filed claims for death benefits as bailon’s beneficiaries

Atty MArites C. dela Torre: legal unit of SSS: recommended cancellation of payment of death pension benefits to respondent and issuance of order to refund amount paid to her from Feb 1998 to May 1999; denied the claim of alice and payment of balance of the five-year guaranteed pension to Bailon’s beneficiaries after the amount erronesouly paid to respondent has been collected

13)

Said that marriage between bailon and jarque is bigamous and void, there s no disappearance disappearance of  Alice—no need to present affidavit of reappearance since alice never disappeared 14) SSS cancelled monthly monthly pension of respondent-marriage respondent-marriage was void since contracted contracted when Bailon’s marriage marriage with alice was still subsisting

15)

Respondent protested cancellation of pension-asserted release of her pension her marriage w/ Bailon not declared by the court as bigamous and unlawful—valid and subsisting 16) SSS dismissed her petition—de petition—declaring claring her “common “common law wife” and ordered ordered payment to alice alice of the death benefit 17) Appealed to to CA after motion motion for reconsideratio reconsideration n was denied by SSS CA: reversed and set aside the April 2, 2003 resolution and June 4, 2003 order of the SSc and thus ordered the SSS to pay respondent all the pension benefits ISSUE: Could the SSC and SSS re-evaluate re-evaluate validly the findings of RTC and on its own declare the latter’s latter’s decision to be bereft of any basis—can they declate the first marriage subsisting and the second marriage null and void? CA: -

It is only only the the compet competent ent court court that that can nulli nullify fy the second second marria marriage ge (Art (Art 87 of CC) Responde Respondent nt SSS canno cannott arrogate arrogate upon upon itself itself the the authority authority to to review review the decisio decision n of the regula regularr courts courts SSS is correct correct in stati stating ng that affida affidavit vit for reappe reappeara arance nce was irrele irrelevant vant since since no first first marriage marriage to to restore restore as marital bond between Alice and Clemente already terminated by death of Clemente; neither a second marriage to terminate since also dissolved by Bailon’s death But But SSS SSS is not corr correc ectt to concl conclud ude e that that it has the autho authori rity ty to revi review ew the decis decisio ion n of the RTC RTC and and consequently declare the second marriage null and void SSC and SSS filed motion for reconsideration but both denied- hence, present review—said that observations and findings relative to CFI proceedings are considered obiter dicta DECISION OF SC: petition fails; DENIED REASONS:

1) 2) 3)

4) 5)

6)

SSC empowered empowered to settle dispute w/ respect to SSS coverage coverage benefits and contributions, contributions, however, however, it cannot review much less reverse, decisions rendered by the courts of law—with respect to the validity of  BAilon’s and Alice’s marriage and the invalidity of bailon and respondent’s marriage Two marriage marriages s solemnized solemnized before before the effectiv effectivity ity of the FC August 3, 1988—app 1988—applica licable ble law to determin determine e validity is the CC (art 83) In this case, case, as found found by the CFI. Alice Alice had been been absent absent for 15 consecut consecutive ive years years when Bailon Bailon sought sought declaration declaration of her presumptive death death which judicial declaration declaration was not even a requirement requirement then for purpose of remarriage When a person person has entered entered into a subsequent subsequent marriag marriage e the second second marriage marriage is presumed presumed valid valid and the burden is o the party assailing the marriage to prove that the first marriage had not been dissolved Under the CCCC- subsequent subsequent marriage marriage being voidable voidable is terminate terminated d by final judgment judgment of annulment annulment in a case instituted by the absent spouse who reappears or by either of the spouses in the subsequent marriage FC: no judicial proceeding to annul a subsequent marriage is necessary (Art 42)

7)

If the absent absentee ee reappear reappears, s, but no step step to termina terminate te the subseq subsequent uent marria marriage, ge, either either by affidav affidavit it or by court action, such absentee’s absentee’s mere reappearance reappearance even if made known to the spouses in the subsequent subsequent marriage will not terminate such marriage

8)

If the subsequent marriage marriage is not terminated by registration registration of an affidavit of reappearance reappearance or by the   judicial declaration but by death of either spouse –a voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding – upon the death of either, the marriage cannot cannot be impeached, and is made good ab initio

9)

In this case at bar, no step was taken to nullify, nullify, in accordan accordance ce with with law, law, bailon’s bailon’s and respond respondent’ ent’s s marriage prior to former’s death in 1998—respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of  Bailon (note: judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse in the new CC is not necessary as long as the prescribed period of absence is met)

ROEHR vs. RODRIGUEZ GR NO. 142820 June 20, 2003 Petitioner: Wolfgang O. Roehr Respondents: Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez. Hon, Judge Josefina Guevara-Salonga (pres Judge of Makati RTC Br 149) Nature of the Case; Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari Ponente: Quisumbing, J. Issue; a) Grave Grave abuse of of discreti discretion on allegedl allegedly y committe committed d by public public responden respondentt b) Lack of jurisdiction jurisdiction of the RTC in matters matters that spring spring from a divorce divorce decree decree obtained obtained abroad abroad by petitioner petitioner Facts: 1) Special Special civil civil action for certio certiorari rari petitio petitioner ner assails assails a) the order dated dated Sept 30, 1999 of public public responden respondentt  Judge Josefina salonga for declaration of nullity of marriage and b) order dated march 31, 2000 denying his motion for reconsideration—parti reconsideration—partially ally set aside the trial court’s order dismissing the Civil case No 96-1389 for the purpose of resolving issues relating to the property settlement of the spouses and the custody of  their children

2)

Wolfgang roehr (German citizen) married Carmen Rodriguez (Filipina) Decmeber 11, 1980 in Hamburg, Germany—ratified on Feb 14, 1981 Tayasan Negros oriental—children: Caroline and Alexandra Kristine 3) August 26, 1996: 1996: private respondent respondent filed filed petition petition for declaration declaration of of nullity of marriage marriage before before RTC Makati city 4) Feb 6, 1997 motion motion to dismiss dismiss filed by petition petitioner er but denied denied and motion motion for reconsidera reconsideration tion also denied 5) Sept 5. 1997: 1997: petitioner petitioner filed filed motion motion for certiorari certiorari to CA CA but denied denied and remanded to RTC 6) Petitio Petitioner ner obtained obtained a decree decree of divorce from from the CFI of Hamburg-Bla Hamburg-Blanken nkenese ese (dec 16, 1997) declar declaring ing marriage dissolved and custody of children to father 7) Petitio Petitioner ner filed filed second motion motion to dismiss dismiss on the ground ground that RTC had no jurisdic jurisdictio tion n over the subject subject matter of the ation or suit as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage – petition granted 8) Private Private respond respondent ent filed filed motion for partia partiall reconsidera reconsideratio tion n with a prayer prayer that the case proceed proceed for the purpose purpose of determi determining ning the issues issues of custody custody of children children and the distributi distribution on of propert properties ies between between petitioner and private respondent 9) Aug 18, 1999: Oppositio Opposition n to the Motion Motion for Partial Partial Reconsider Reconsiderati ation on was filed by petitio petitioner— ner—noth nothing ing they could do anymore—decree anymore—decree of divorce already already recognized by the RTC through the implementatio implementation n of the mandate of Art 26 of the FC endowing petitioner w/ the capacity to remarry under Phil Law 10) Sept 30, 1999 – respondent judge judge issued order partially partially setting setting aside her order dated dated July 14, 1999 for the purpose of tackling the issues of property relations and support and custody of their children 11) Petitioner’s Petitioner’s motion motion fore reconsiderati reconsideration on was denied denied ISSUES: 1) WON respondent respondent judge gravely abused abused her discretion discretion in in issuing her her order dated dated Sept 30, 30, 1999 w/c partially partially modified her order dated July 14, 1999 and 2) WON respondent respondent judge judge gravely gravely abused her her discretion discretion when when she assumed assumed and retained retained jurisdiction jurisdiction over the present case despite the fact that petitioner has already obtained a divorce decree from german court

-

-

FIRST ISSUE: Petitioner: asserts that assailed order of respondent judge is completely inconsistent w/ her previous order and is contrary to Sec 3 rule 16 of rules of civil procedure (resolution of motion) Court’s Court’s action action is limit limited ed to dismiss dismissing ing the the action action or claim, claim, denyin denying g the motion motion or orde ordering ring amendm amendment ent of  the pleading Respondent: argues that RTC can validly reconsider its order because it had not yet attained finality, given the timely filing of respondent’s motion for reconsideration Section Section 3 relatio relation n to Sec 7 Rule Rule 37 of the 1997 1997 Rules Rules on Civil Civil Procedu Procedure re (action (action upon upon motio motion n for new trial trial or reconsideration and partial new trial or reconsideration) Judge Judge can order order partia partiall reconsid reconsiderat eration ion as long long as within within reglem reglementa entary ry period period and w/o w/o finality finality yet yet

SECOND ISSUE: Petitioner: claims that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion when she partially set aside her order despite despite the fact that petitioner petitioner has already already obtained obtained a divorce divorce decree from CFI Hamburg Germany

-

COURT: court consistently held that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our  jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner ( Garcia v. Recio, Van Dorn v. Romillo,Jr. and Llorente v. CA) The divorce divorce decree decree not challeng challenged ed save for the issue issue of of parent parental al custo custody dy

-

As a general general rule, divorce divorce decrees decrees obtained obtained by foreigne foreigners rs in other other countrie countries s are recognizabl recognizable e in our  jurisidcition,  jurisidcition, but the legal effects thereof (on custody and support of children) must still be determined determined by our courts

-

In this jurisdicti jurisdiction, on, our Rules Rules of Court Court clearly clearly provide provide that that with with respect respect to actions actions in personam, personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes   prima facie evidence of the  justness of the claim of a party and as such, is subject to proof to the contrary

-

In the present case, private respondent was not given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court so that there is basis for declaring the judgment as res judicata w/ regard to the rights of  petitioner to have parental custody of their two children—proceedings of German court were summary— decision given based on the German civil code provision to the effect that when couple lived separately for three three years, years, the marriage marriage is deemed deemed irrefuta irrefutably bly dissolve dissolved—no d—no determinat determination ion of the issue issue if parenta parentall custody, care, support and education mindful of the best interests of children On matter of property property relations, relations, petitioner asserts that public respondent exceed exceeded ed the bounds of her   jurisdi jurisdicti ction on when she claimed claimed cogniza cognizance nce of the issue issue concern concerning ing propert property y relatio relations ns between between petitioner and private respondent Given Given factu factual al admis admissio sion n by partie parties s in their their pleadin pleadings gs that that there there is no prope property rty to to be account accounted ed for, for, respondent judge has no basis to assert jurisdiction in this case to resolve a matter no longer deemed in controversy •

-

-

DECISION OF SC: the orders of RTC Makati Br 149 issued Sept 30, 1999 and March 31, 2000 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. MODIFICATION. Court declares that the trial court has jurisdiction jurisdiction over the issue between the parties as to parental custody, including child care, support and education of children—records remanded to the  Trial court for continuation of appropriate proceedings TC can procee proceed d on taking taking cogniza cognizance nce of the the children children custod custody y issue but but it erred erred in taking taking cogniza cognizance nce of the the property issue or relations of the parties

GARCIA vs. RECIO GR NO. 138322 October 2, 2001 Petitioner: Grace J. Garcia (Grace Garcia-recio) Respondent: Rederick A. Recio Nature of the case : Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the RTC of Cabanatuan city Br. 28 Ponente: Panganiban. J. Issue; Facts: 1) Petitio Petition n for review review under under Rule 45 of the the Rules Rules of Court seeki seeking ng to nullify nullify the Januar January y 7,1999 decisi decision on and the mArch 24, 1999 Order of the RTC of Cabanatuan city br 28 in Civil case no 3026-AF 2) Rederick Recio (fil) (fil) married married to Editha Editha Samson Samson (Austrial (Austrial citizen) citizen) in Malabon, Malabon, Rizal March March 1, 1987 3) May 18, 1989 1989 a decree decree of divorce purportedly purportedly dissolving dissolving the marriage was issued issued by Austrian Austrian family family court 4) June 26, 1992: respondent respondent became Australian Australian citizen citizen (cert (cert of Australian Australian citizenship) citizenship)

5) 6)

7) 8)

Petitioner Petitioner and respondent married married in Jan 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan Cabanatuan City—application City—application for a marriage license, respondent was declared as single and Filipino Lived separately separately w/o judicial judicial dissolution dissolution of their marriage marriage—conjugal —conjugal assets were were divided on mAy 16, 1996 1996 in accordance with Statutory Declarations secured in Australia March 3, 1998: petitioner petitioner filed Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy— respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time they got married

Respondent: as far back as 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution 9) He was was capacit capacitate ated d to marry marry petitio petitioner ner in in 1994 1994 10) July 7, 1998: 1998: while while suit for declarat declaration ion of nullit nullity y was pending— pending—resp responde ondent nt was able to secure divorce divorce decree in Sydney Australia since marriage has broken down 11) Respondent Respondent prayed in his answer that Complaint Complaint be dismissed—state dismissed—stated d no cause of action 12) SG: agree agreed d w/ respon respondent dent

RTC: declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the Phils It based based its decisi decision on on the the divorce divorce decree decree obtai obtained ned by respon respondent dent.. The Austra Australian lian divor divorce ce had ende ended d the marriage, thus, there was no more marital union to nullify or annul ISSUES: petition raised five issues but for purposes of this decision concentrate on two pivotal issues: 1) Whether Whether the divorc divorce e between between Respon Respondent dent and and Editha Editha Ramos Ramos was was proven proven 2) Whether respondent was proven proven to be legally legally capacitated capacitated to marry marry petitioner petitioner DECISION OF SC: Petition is meritorious; interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, court REMANDS the case to court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondent’s legal capacity to remarry petitioner and failing in that, of declaring the parties’ marriage void on the ground of bigamy REASONS; First Issue: Proving the divorce between Respondent and Editha Ramos Philippi Philippine ne law does does not provide provide for absol absolute ute divorce divorce,, hence, or courts courts cannot cannot grant grant it. it. A marriage marriage between between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because Arts 15, 17 of the CC Mixed Mixed marriage marriages: s: a fil and and a forei foreigner gner Art Art 26 of of FC allow allows s the former former to to contract contract a subseque subsequent nt marria marriage ge in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by alien spouse capacitating him to remarry

-

-

 Therefore, before any foreign divorce can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it—presentation solely of  the divorce decree is insufficient Under Under Section Section 24 and and 25 of Rule Rule 132, a writ writing ing or docume document nt may be prove proven n as a public public or offic official ial record record of  of  a foreign country by either a) An off offic icia iall publ public icat atio ion n b) A copy thereo thereoff attested attested by the the officer officer having having legal legal custody custody of the the document document c) If record record is not kept kept in the Phils—s Phils—such uch a copy must must be accompan accompanied ied by a certific certificate ate issued issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Phil foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office The divorc divorce e decree decree between between respond respondent ent and and Editha Editha Samson Samson appears appears to be authen authentic tic howeve howeverr appearanc appearance e is not sufficient, compliance with the aforementioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated

-

Burden Burden of proving proving Australian Australian law: lies with with the party who alleges alleges the existenc existences es of a fact or thing thing necessary in the prosecution prosecution of defense of an action—since defense defense raised by respondent—the respondent—the burden of  proving pertinent Australian law to validate it falls on him Our court courts s canno cannott take take judi judici cial al noti notice ce of of forei foreign gn law laws s Second issue: respondent’s legal capacity to remarry  Divorce Divorce means means the the legal legal dissol dissolutio ution n of a lawfu lawfull union union for a caus cause e arising arising after after marr marriage iage

-

Different types: 2 common: 1) absolute divorce or a viniculo matrimonii and 2) limited divorce or a mansa et thoro – first kind terminates the marriage while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force

-

  This This case, case, no showi showing ng of the kind kind of divor divorce ce decre decree— e—res respo ponde ndent nt presen presente ted d a decre decree e nisi nisi pr an interlocutory decree—a conditional or provisional judgment of divorce

-

Some courts may restrict remarriage even after divorce is granted (some limited by statute- guilty party not tor remarry again) There There is contenti contention on that that divorce divorce obtained obtained be respo responden ndentt may have been been restric restricted— ted—did did not absol absolutel utely y establish his legal capacity to remarry

-

-

 TC erred in assuming that Australian Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondent’s capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter

-

Legal Legal capacit capacity y to contract contract marriage marriage is determi determined ned by the national national law of the party concern concerned—t ed—the he certificate (mentioned in Art 21 of FC) could have established his legal capacity to remarry if presented There There is absolut absolutely ely no evide evidence nce that that proves proves respo responden ndent’s t’s legal legal capaci capacity ty to marry marry petit petitione ionerr

-

RP vs. ORBECIDO GR No. 154380 October 5, 2005 Petitioner: RP Respondent: Cipriano Orbecido III Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the RTC of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur Br 23 Ponente: Quisumbing, J Issue: given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later naturalized naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law? (applicability of Art 26 of the FC) Facts:

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) -

In this petition petition for review, SG assails assails the decision of of RTC and denying motion motion for reconsidera reconsideration—t tion—the he court declared that herein respondent is capacitated to remarry May 24, 1981: 1981: Cipriano Orbecido Orbecido III III married married Lady Myros Myros M. Villanueva Villanueva at the UCCP in Lam-an Lam-an Ozamis, Ozamis, City Blessed with with a son son and daughter: Kristoffer Kristoffer Simbortriz Simbortriz V. Orbecido Orbecido and and Lady Kimberly Kimberly V. V. Obercido 1986: Cipriano’s Cipriano’s wife wife left for for the US bringing along Kristoffer— Kristoffer—a a few years years later discovered discovered by Cipriano Cipriano that wife had been naturalized as American citizen 2000: Cipria Cipriano no learned learned from son that wife wife obtained obtained a divorce divorce decree and and then married married a certain certain Innocent Innocent Stanley (now living at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Ave San Gabriel California) Cipriano filed before before RTC petition petition for authority authority to remarry remarry invoking invoking Par 2 of Art 26 of the the FC No oppos oppositi ition on filed. filed. RTC granted granted the the petit petition ion Solicitor Solicitor general general represent representing ing the the republic republic sought reconsideration reconsideration but denied denied Contends Contends that that par par 2 Art 26 is not not applic applicable able to to the instan instantt case becau because se it only only applies applies to a valid valid mixed mixed marriage; that is a marriage between a fil citizen and an alien Proper Proper reme remedy dy is is to file a petit petition ion for annul annulment ment or legal legal separat separation ion Argues Argues that no law law governs governs respond respondent’ ent’s s situatio situation—a n—a matter matter of legisl legislatio ation n and not a matter matter of judicia judiciall determination

SC: petition petition by RP is GRANTED. GRANTED. The assailed decision dated dated May 15, 2002 and resolution dated July 4, 2002 of the RTC Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur Br 23 are hereby SET ASIDE. Holds Holds that par par 2 of Art Art 26 of the the FC amended amended by by EO 227 should should be be interpre interpreted ted to to allow allow a Fil citize citizen n who has has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried also to remarry—but declaration could only be made properly upon respondent’s submission of aforecited evidence in his favor

REASONS: 1) At the outset, outset, the petition petition for authority authority to remarry filed filed actually actually constituted constituted a petition petition for declaratory declaratory relief  relief  (sec 1Rule 63 of the Rules of Court) 2) Requi Requisit sites es for declara declarati tion on of decla declarat rator ory y relie relief: f: a) there there must must be a justi justicia ciable ble controv controver ersy; sy; b) the the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; c) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy and d) the issue is ripe for judicial determination 3) The insta instant nt case is one one where where at the time of marr marria iage ge was solem solemniz nized, ed, the partie parties s were were two Filipin Filipino o citizens, but later on the wife was naturalized as an American citizen citizen and subsequently subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity tor remarry ad indeed she remarried an American citizen 4) (histori (historical cal backgrou background) nd) CBCP: says that Art 26 is discriminat discriminatoryory-disc discrimi riminate nates s against against those who spouses spouses are Filipinos who divorce them abroad. abroad. These spouses who are divorced will not be able to remarry while the spouses of foreigners who validly divorce them abroad can remarry 5) This is the beginning beginning of the recognitio recognition n of the validity of of divorce even for Fil citizens citizens 6) Legislative Legislative intent: Family Family Code deliberatio deliberation n records: art art 26 was aimed aimed to avoid avoid the absurd absurd situation situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who after obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the fil citizen

7)

 The answer to the question if this applies to Filipinos and to this case?—lies latent in the 1998 case of  quita vs CA—by CA—by way of  obiter dictum that A Fil divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Phil laws and can thus remarry

8)

 Thus, Art 26 par 2 of the FC should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who at the time of the celebration of marriage were fil citizens but later on one becomes naturalized and obtains a divorce decree —to rule otherwise would post injustice and absurdity 9) The provision provision should be construed construed to its spirit and reason, disregarding disregarding as far as necessary necessary the the letter of the law 10) The reckoning reckoning point is not the citizenship citizenship of the parties during the time time of the marriage but during during the time a valid divorce decree has been obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry 11) About the SC remedy remedy given: the court cannot cannot sustain: sustain: annulment would would be a long and tedious tedious process and not possible since marriage is valid; legal separation on the other hand would not be sufficient remedy for it would not sever marriage ties 12) However, records records presented are bereft of competent competent evidence duly submitted submitted by respondent concerning concerning the divorce decree and naturalization of wife

13)

Must prove his allegation that wife is naturalized and has obtained divorce and demonstrate its conformity with foreign law allowing it—showing also that wife was allowed to remarry

SAN LUIS vs. LUIS GR NO. 133743 february 6, 2007

Petitioner: edgar San Luis Respondent: Felicidad San luis GR NO. 134929 february 6, 2007 Petitioner:Rodolfo San Luis Respondent: Felicidad Sagalongos alias felicidad San Luis

Nature of the case: consolidated petitions fore review assailing the feb 4, 1998 decision of the CA which reversed and set aside the sept 12 1995 and January 31, 1996 resolutions resolutions of RTC Makati Br 134 in SP Proc NO. 3708 and its mAy 15, 1998 resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J. Issue: settlement of the estate of felicisimo San Luis (former governor of laguna) Facts: 1) 2)

Gov. contrac contracted ted three three marriage marriages: s: a) Virginia Virginia Sulit (March (March 17, 1942) 1942) out of which were born born 6 children children (Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita, and Manuel) in 1963 Virginia predeceased Felicisimo May 1, 1968: felicis felicisimo imo married married Merry Merry Lee Cowin Cowin (American (American citizen citizen)) with whom he had a son Tobias— Tobias— Merrly Lee filed complaint for divorce before the family court of the Court of First Circuit of Hawaii which issued decree Granting absolute divorce and awarding child custody (dec 14, 1973)

3)

 June 20, 1974: felicisimo married felicidad San Luis (respondent) in Los Angeles, CA—no children—lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death on dec 18, 1992

4)

Respondent Respondent sought dissolution dissolution of their conjugal partnership partnership assets and settlement of felicisimo’s felicisimo’s estate— filed petition for letters of administration before the RTC of Makati Respondent Respondent alleged alleged that she she is the widow of felicisimo felicisimo that the the decedent’s decedent’s surviving surviving heirs are are respondent respondent as legal spouse, his six children by his first marriage and son by second marriage—prayed that the conjugal partnership assets be liquidated and that letters of administration be issued to her

5)

6)

7) 8)

Feb 4, 1994: petitioner Rodolfo San Luis child of felicisimo in the first marriage filed motion to dismiss— grounds: improper venue to state a cause of action—should have been filed in the province of laguna because this was the place f residence of felicisimo prior to his death; claimed further that respondent has no legal personality to file petition since she was only a mistress of felicisimo since the latter during the time of his death was still legally married to Merry Lee Feb 15, 15, 1994: 1994: Linda invoked invoked the same grounds grounds Feb 28, 28, 1994: 1994: RTC issued issued an order order denying denying the the motion motions s

9)

Unaware Unaware of the denial denial of motions motions to dismiss: dismiss: respond respondent ent filed filed (Mar 5, 1994) 1994) oppositi opposition—s on—submi ubmitte tted d documentary evidence that felicisimo regularly went home to their house in New ALabang, villahe, Alabang MM; presented absolute divorce decree issued by court n Hawaii to prove that second marriage was dissolved—claims felicisimo has legal capacity to marry her 10) Petitio Petitioners ners asserted asserted that par 2 art 26 of FC cannot cannot be given given retroac retroactive tive effect effect to validate validate responden respondent’s t’s bigamous marriage with felicisimo since this would impair vested rights in derogation of Art 256 of the FC 11) Oct 24, 1994: motion for reconsiderati reconsideration on was dismissed—respondent, dismissed—respondent, as widow widow of decedent possessed the legal standing to file the petition and that the venue was properly laid  TC: dismissed the petition for letters of administration; 1) Felicisimo was duly elected gov of laguna—pe laguna—petition tition must have been filed filed in sta sta cruz laguna laguna

2)

Because marriage with Felicisimo was bigamous thus void ab initio (divorce obtained by merry lee not valid in the Phils) 3) Art 26 par 2 cannot be retroactively retroactively applied applied for it would impair the the vested rights rights of felicisimo’s felicisimo’s legitimate legitimate children CA: REVERSED and SET ASIDE orders of the trial court

-

Said that term residence refers to actual residence or place of abode of a person as distinguished from legal residence or domicile—since he actually resided in Alabang Muntinlupa even though he is discharging his functions in laguna—thus the petition for letters of administration was properly filed in Makati Held that that felici felicisimo simo had had legal legal capacity capacity to marr marry y responden respondentt by virtue virtue of Art 26 26 par 2 of the the FC (Van Dorn Dorn vs. Romillo Jr) and Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera) Found Found that that marria marriage ge betwee between n Merry Merry Lee and and felici felicisim simo o was was validly validly dissol dissolve ved d by virtue virtue of decree decree of  absolute divorce (not a bigamous marriage—courts cannot deny what the law grants)

ISSUES: 1) Whethe Whetherr venue venue was was prope properly rly laid laid 2) Whether respondent respondent has the legal legal capacity capacity to file the the subject petition petition for letters letters of administrati administration on DECISION OF SC: Petition Petition lacks Merit.; Petition Petition is DENIED. The decision of CA reinstating and affirming the RTC which denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and its order which dismissed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is AFFIMRED. Case REMANDED to the trial court for further reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent and felicisimo Found Found that respon respondent dent’s ’s legal legal capacity capacity to file file subject subject petitio petition n for letter letter of administ administrati ration on may arise arise from her status as the surviving wife of felicisimo or as his co-owner under Art 144 of the CC or Art 148 of the FC

REASONS: 1) Section1 Section1 Rule Rule 73 of rules rules of court—pe court—petit tition ion for letters letters of administr administratio ation n should be filed filed in the RTC of the province in which he resides at the time of his death—rule for determining residence (Garcia Fule vs CA)— contradistinguised from domicile

2)

Residence or resides—popular sense, meaning, the personal actual or physical habitation of a person, signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat—means simply residence, personal residence

not legal residence or domicile—no particular length of time required, however, residence must be more than temporary

3)

Incorrect for petitioners to argue that residence is the same as domicile for purposes of fixing the venue of  the settlement of the estate of felicisimo—this is often used in election laws

4)

Since respondent proved that deceased also maintained a residence in Alabang Muntinlupa Muntinlupa from 1982 up to the time of his death—subject petition was validly filed before the RTC of Makati LEGAL LEGAL PERSONALIT PERSONALITY: Y: issue: issue: whether whether the fil was divorced divorced by his alien alien spouse spouse abroad abroad and may validly validly remarry under the CC—marriage solemnized solemnized before the FC took effect—no need to retroactively retroactively apply art 26 but use the sufficient jurisprudential basis—affirmative— basis—affirmative—Pilapil Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera; Quita vs CA, Van Dorn vs. ROmillo JR.

5)

6) 7) 8)

9)

Historical background and legislative intent behind art 26 par 2 Van dorn case is sufficient basis in resolving a situation where a divorce is valdly obtained abroad by the alien spouse. With the enactment of Art 26 par 2 of the FC thereof our lawmakers codified the already established through judicial precedent--the Filipino Filipino spouse spouse should should not be discrimi discriminate nated d against against in his own country country if the ends ends of justice justice are to be served   The law should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause injustice as this is never within the legislative intent. An indispensable part of the intent, in fact, for we presume the good motives of the legislature is to RENDER JUSTICE

10)

Proof of authenticity and due execution of documents must be presented --- public document requirements: a) an official publication; b) copy attested thereof by the officer having legal custody of the document. document. If the record is not kept in the Phils copy must be: a) accompanied accompanied by certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Phil foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and b) authenticated by the seal of his office 11) Present; Present; validi validity ty of divorce divorce 12) Even if felicisimo is not capacitated capacitated to remarry, respondent respondent still has legal capacity—she capacity—she may be considered considered the co-owner of felicisimo as regards properties properties that were acquired through their joint efforts during their cohabitation

NOTE: IF she proves validity of divorce and capacity to remarry bu felicisimo but fails to prove that their marriage was validly performed according to law of the US—considered co-owner in Art 144 of the CC- parties living together without benefit of marriage or void from the beginning—co-owners beginning—co-ownership hip If fails fails to prove the validity validity of both divorce divorce and marriage marriage—app —applica licable ble art would would be Art 148 of FC—regul FC—regulati ating ng property relations of couples living together as husband and wife but are incapacitated to remarry—regime of  limited co-ownership

VALDES vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT br 102 QC GR no. 122749 July 31, 1996 Petitioner: Antonio A.S. Valdes Respondent: RTC BR 102 QC and Consuelo M. Gomez-Valdes Nature of the case: petition for review of a decision of the RTC of QC Br 102 Ponente: Vitug, J. Issue: Facts:

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Petition for review bewails on a question of law an alleged error committed by RTC—failed to apply correct law that should govern the disposition of family dwelling in a situation where a marriage is declared ab initio because of psychological incapacity on the part of either or both of the parties of the contract January January 5, 1971: 1971: Antonio Antonio Valde Valdes s and Consue Consuelo lo Gomez Gomez marrie married d 5 ch children June 22, 1992: 1992: valdez sought sought the declaration declaration of nullity nullity of their marriage marriage pursuant pursuant to Art 36 of the the FC RTC declar declared ed marri marriage age null null and and void void Consuelo Gomez sought for a clarificati clarification on of that portion portion of the decision decision directing directing compliance compliance with Arts Arts 50, 51 and 52 of the FC; she asserted that the FC contained no provisions on the procedure for liquidation of  common property in unions without marriage

RTC: clarification: clarification: considering that Art 147 of the FC explicitly provides that property acquired by both  parties during their union, in the absence of proof to the contrary, are presumed to have been obtained  through the joint efforts of the parties and will be owned by them in equal shares, plaintiff and defendant  will own their “family home” and all their other properties properties for that matter in equal shares”—provisions shares”—provisions on co-ownership will apply  7) Petitioner Petitioner moved fore reconsiderat reconsideration ion of the order order (issue regarding regarding family dwelling)— dwelling)—petition petition denied 8) Appealed

DECISION OF SC: Trial court correctly applied the law; Questioned orders, dated May 5, 1995 and October 30, 1995 of the trial court are AFFIRMED. REASONS:

1) 2)

in void marriages, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of  cohabitation is governed by the provisions of art 147 or 148 such as the case may be, of the Family Code Art 147 is the remake of Art 144 of the CC this peculia peculiarr kind of co-owners co-ownership hip applies applies when a man and a woman sufferi suffering ng no legal impedim impediment ent to marry each other, so exclusively lives together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage

3)

under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed governed by the rules on equal equal co-owner co-ownership ship.Any .Any property property acquire acquired d during during the union is   prima facie presumed presumed to have been obtained obtained through through their joint efforts A party party who did not participa participate te in the acquisition of the property shall still be considered as having contributed thereto jointly of said party’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family housedhold. Unlike the conjugal partnership of  gains, the fruits of the couples’ separate property are not included in the co-ownership

4)

the trial court acted neither imprudently nor precipitately – a court which had jurisdiction to declare the marria marriage ge a nulli nullity ty must must be deemed deemed like likewis wise e clothe clothed d with with autho authori rity ty to resol resolve ve the incid incident ental al and and consequential matters

5)

it did not commit error in ruling that petitioner and private respondent own the “family home” and all their common property in equal shares as in concluding that in the liquidation and partition of the property owned in common by them the provisions on co-ownership under the CC not Arts 50, 51 and 52 in relation to arts 102 and 129 of the FC should aptly prevail--- these are only for valid and voidable marriages (community and conjugal partnerships)