Ugalde v. Ysasi-Judicial Separation of Property

UGALDE V. YSASI, G.R. No. 130623, February 29, 2008 Facts: Lorea Ugalde and Jon de Ysasi got married beforeMunicipal Judge Remigio Peña of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental and on March 1, 1951, Rev. Msgr. Flaviano Arriola solemnized their church wedding at the San Sebastian Cathedral in Bacolod City. Petitioner and respondent did not execute any ante-nuptial agreement. They had a son named Jon de Ysasi III. Later on, they separated and the respondent contracted another marriage with Victoria Eleanor Smith. Petitioner alleged that respondent and Smith had been acquiring and disposing of real and personal properties to her prejudice as the lawful wife and that she had been defrauded of rental income, profits, and fruits of their conjugal properties. Petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains against respondent before the RTC of Negros Occidental. Thereafter, respondent contended that he and the petitioner entered into an agreement which provides that their conjugal partnership shall be deemed dissolved. Pursuant to this, an Amicable Settlement was submitted to the CFI of Negros Occidental. CFI approved the Amicable Settlement. Respondent likewise alleged that petitioner already obtained a divorce from him before the Supreme Court of Mexico. Petitioner then contracted a second marriage with Richard Galoway and upon the latter’s death, she contracted a third marriage with Frank Scholey. Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains on the grounds of estoppel, laches, and res judicata. Further, respondent alleged that their marriage was void because it was executed without the benefit of a marriage license. TC- ruled that there was no conjugal partnership of gains and that since they entered into an amicable settlement which was later on approved, the petitioner may no longer repudiate it. CA- affirmed the decision of the trial court

Issue: 1. Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the Trial Court's Decision which dismissed the action for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains? 2. Whether or not the TC exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling on the validity of the petitioner and respondent’s marriage? Held: 1. No. Petitioner and respondent were married on 15 February 1951. Thus, the applicable law is the Civil Code (RA 386). Under Article 175 of the Civil Code, the judicial separation of property results in the termination of the conjugal partnership of gains:

Art. 175. The conjugal partnership of gains terminates: (1) Upon the death of either spouse; (2) When there is a decree of legal separation; (3) When the marriage is annulled; (4) In case of judicial separation of property under Article 191. (Emphasis supplied) The finality of the Amicable Settlement approving the parties' separation of property resulted in the termination of the conjugal partnership of gains in accordance with Article 175 of the Family Code. Hence, when the trial court decided on the petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains (S.P. No 3330), the conjugal partnership between petitioner and respondent was already dissolved. The Amicable Settlement had become final as between petitioner and respondent when it was approved by the CFI on June 6, 1961. The CFI's approval of the Compromise Agreement resulted in the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains between petitioner and respondent on even date. 2. Yes. The trial court then proceeded to rule on the validity of petitioner and respondent's marriage. The trial court ruled that it was shown by competent evidence that petitioner and respondent failed to obtain a marriage license. Hence, the marriage between petitioner and respondent was null and void, and no community of property was formed between them. The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling on the validity of petitioner and respondent's marriage, which was only raised by respondent as a defense to the action for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains. The validity of petitioner and respondent's marriage was the subject of another action, Civil Case No. 430 for Judicial Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage before RTC of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental. In 1995, the said court ruled that the marriage was null and void for failure to comply with the formal and essential requirements of the law.