Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 361 views

    Valdez Vs RTC

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Pilar
    This case involves the dissolution of property acquired during the marriage of Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez, which was declared null due to psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 147 of the Family Code, which governs property acquired during unions without marriage, is the applicable law in this case. Under Article 147, property acquired by both parties through their work and industry during the marriage is considered jointly owned in equal share, regardless of the reason the marriage is declared void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Valdez Vs RTC

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Pilar
    361 views2 pages
    This case involves the dissolution of property acquired during the marriage of Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez, which was declared null due to psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 147 of the Family Code, which governs property acquired during unions without marriage, is the applicable law in this case. Under Article 147, property acquired by both parties through their work and industry during the marriage is considered jointly owned in equal share, regardless of the reason the marriage is declared void.

    Original Description:

    Valdez vs Rtc Case digest

    Original Title

    Valdez vs Rtc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves the dissolution of property acquired during the marriage of Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez, which was declared null due to psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 147 of the Family Code, which governs property acquired during unions without marriage, is the applicable law in this case. Under Article 147, property acquired by both parties through their work and industry during the marriage is considered jointly owned in equal share, regardless of the reason the marriage is declared void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    361 views2 pages

    Valdez Vs RTC

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Pilar
    This case involves the dissolution of property acquired during the marriage of Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez, which was declared null due to psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 147 of the Family Code, which governs property acquired during unions without marriage, is the applicable law in this case. Under Article 147, property acquired by both parties through their work and industry during the marriage is considered jointly owned in equal share, regardless of the reason the marriage is declared void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    VALDEZvsRTC

    Petitioner:ANTONIOA.S.VALDEZ,
    Repondents:REGIONALTRIALCOURT,BRANCH102,QUEZONCITY,andCONSUELOM.
    GOMEZVALDEZ,
    FACTS:
    AntonioValdezandConsueloGomezweremarriedin1971.Theybegot5children.In1992,Valdezfileda
    petitionfordeclarationofnullityoftheirmarriageonthegroundofpsychologicalincapacity.Thetrial
    courtgrantedthepetition,therebydeclaringtheirmarriagenullandvoid.Italsodirectedthepartiestostart
    proceedingsontheliquidationoftheircommonpropertiesasdefinedbyArticle147oftheFamilyCode,
    andtocomplywiththeprovisionsofArticles50,51and52ofthesamecode.
    Gomezsoughtaclarificationofthatportioninthedecision.SheassertedthattheFamilyCodecontained
    noprovisionsontheprocedurefortheliquidationofcommonpropertyin"unionswithoutmarriage.
    InanOrder,thetrialcourtmadethefollowingclarification:"Consequently,consideringthatArticle147of
    theFamilyCodeexplicitlyprovidesthatthepropertyacquiredbybothpartiesduringtheirunion,inthe
    absenceofprooftothecontrary,arepresumedtohavebeenobtainedthroughthejointeffortsoftheparties
    andwillbeownedbytheminequalshares,plaintiffanddefendantwillowntheir'familyhome'andall
    theirotherpropertiesforthatmatterinequalshares.Intheliquidationandpartitionofthepropertiesowned
    incommonbytheplaintiffanddefendant,theprovisionsoncoownershipfoundintheCivilCodeshall
    apply."
    ValdesmovedforreconsiderationoftheOrderwhichwasdenied.Valdesappealed,arguingthat:
    (1)Article147oftheFamilyCodedoesnotapplytocaseswherethepartiesarepsychological
    incapacitated;(2)Articles50,51and52inrelationtoArticles102and129oftheFamilyCodegovernthe
    dispositionofthefamilydwellingincaseswhereamarriageisdeclaredvoidabinitio,includingamarriage
    declaredvoidbyreasonofthepsychologicalincapacityofthespouses;(3)AssumingarguendothatArticle
    147appliestomarriagesdeclaredvoidabinitioonthegroundofthepsychologicalincapacityofaspouse,
    thesamemaybereadconsistentlywithArticle129.
    ISSUE:
    WhetherArt147FCisthecorrectlawgoverningthedispositionofpropertyinthecaseatbar.
    HELD:
    YES.Inavoidmarriage,regardlessofthecausethereof,thepropertyrelationsofthepartiesduringthe
    periodofcohabitationisgovernedbytheprovisionsofArticle147orArticle148,suchasthecasemaybe,
    oftheFamilyCode.
    Article147applieswhenamanandawoman,sufferingnoillegalimpedimenttomarryeachother,so
    exclusivelylivetogetherashusbandandwifeunderavoidmarriageorwithoutthebenefitof
    marriage.Underthispropertyregime,propertyacquiredbybothspousesthroughtheirworkandindustry
    shallbegovernedbytherulesonequalcoownership.Anypropertyacquiredduringtheunionisprima
    faciepresumedtohavebeenobtainedthroughtheirjointefforts.Apartywhodidnotparticipateinthe
    acquisitionofthepropertyshallbeconsideredashavingcontributedtheretojointlyifsaidparty's"efforts
    consistedinthecareandmaintenanceofthefamilyhousehold."Unliketheconjugalpartnershipofgains,
    thefruitsofthecouple'sseparatepropertyarenotincludedinthecoownership.
    Whenthecommonlawspousessufferfromalegalimpedimenttomarryorwhentheydonotlive

    exclusivelywitheachother(ashusbandandwife),onlythepropertyacquiredbybothofthemthroughtheir
    actualjointcontributionofmoney,propertyorindustryshallbeownedincommonandinproportionto
    theirrespectivecontributions.Suchcontributionsandcorrespondingshares,however,areprimafacie
    presumedtobeequal.Theshareofanypartywhoismarriedtoanothershallaccruetotheabsolute
    communityorconjugalpartnership,asthecasemaybe,ifsoexistingunderavalidmarriage.Iftheparty
    whohasactedinbadfaithisnotvalidlymarriedtoanother,hisorhershareshallbeforfeitedinthemanner
    alreadyheretoforeexpressed.
    Indecidingtotakefurthercognizanceoftheissueonthesettlementoftheparties'commonproperty,the
    trialcourtactedneitherimprudentlynorprecipitately;acourtwhichhasjurisdictiontodeclarethemarriage
    anullitymustbedeemedlikewiseclothedinauthoritytoresolveincidentalandconsequentialmatters.Nor
    diditcommitareversibleerrorinrulingthatpetitionerandprivaterespondentownthe"familyhome"and
    alltheircommonpropertyinequalshares,aswellasinconcludingthat,intheliquidationandpartitionof
    thepropertyownedincommonbythem,theprovisionsoncoownershipundertheCivilCode,notArticles
    50,51and52,inrelationtoArticles102and129,12oftheFamilyCode,shouldaptlyprevail.Therules
    setuptogoverntheliquidationofeithertheabsolutecommunityortheconjugalpartnershipofgains,the
    propertyregimesrecognizedforvalidandvoidablemarriages(inthelattercaseuntilthecontractis
    annulled),areirrelevanttotheliquidationofthecoownershipthatexistsbetweencommonlawspouses.
    ThefirstparagraphofArticles50oftheFamilyCode,applyingparagraphs(2),(3),(4)and95)ofArticle
    43,13relatesonly,byitsexplicitterms,tovoidablemarriagesand,exceptionally,tovoidmarriagesunder
    Article4014oftheCode,i.e.,thedeclarationofnullityofasubsequentmarriagecontractedbyaspouseof
    apriorvoidmarriagebeforethelatterisjudiciallydeclaredvoid.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy