Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Maquilan Vs Maquilan

This case involved a husband who filed for divorce from his wife after discovering her adulterous affair. The wife then filed for nullification of the marriage. The parties entered a compromise agreement, approved by the court, that partially separated their conjugal property. The husband argued this was invalid as the wife's adultery conviction disqualified her from property rights. However, the court upheld the agreement, finding that existing law allows voluntary judicial separation of property between spouses, and the wife's penalty did not include civil interdiction removing her property rights. The court affirmed that voluntary separation agreements are permitted under the Family Code even while nullification proceedings are pending.

Uploaded by

Joshua Ouano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Maquilan Vs Maquilan

This case involved a husband who filed for divorce from his wife after discovering her adulterous affair. The wife then filed for nullification of the marriage. The parties entered a compromise agreement, approved by the court, that partially separated their conjugal property. The husband argued this was invalid as the wife's adultery conviction disqualified her from property rights. However, the court upheld the agreement, finding that existing law allows voluntary judicial separation of property between spouses, and the wife's penalty did not include civil interdiction removing her property rights. The court affirmed that voluntary separation agreements are permitted under the Family Code even while nullification proceedings are pending.

Uploaded by

Joshua Ouano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Voluntary Judicial Separation of Property

MAQUILAN vs. MAQUILAN Case Digest


FACTS:

1. Petitioner & Private Respondent are spouses who once had a blissful married life and out of
which were blessed to have a son.

2. However, their once sugar coated romance turned bitter when petitioner discovered that private
respondent(wife) was having illicit sexual affair with her paramour, which thus, prompted the
petitioner(husband) to file a case of adultery against private respondent and the latter's paramour.
Consequently, both accused were convicted of the crime charged.

3. Private respondent filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Dissolution and
Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Damages imputing psychological incapacity
on the part of the petitioner.

4. During the pre-trial of the said case, petitioner and private respondent entered into a
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT regarding the partial separation of their CP.

5. Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for the repudiation of the AGREEMENT. This motion was
denied.

6. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals on the
ground that the conviction of the respondent of the crime of adultery disqualify her from sharing in
the conjugal property. The Petition was dismissed. The CA held that the conviction of the
respondent of the crime of adultery does not ipso facto disqualify her from sharing in the conjugal
property, especially considering that she had only been sentenced with the penalty of prision
correccional, a penalty that does not carry the accessory penalty of civil interdiction which deprives
the person of the rights to manage her property and to dispose of such property inter vivos.

7. The petitioner argues that the Compromise Agreement should not have been given judicial
imprimatur since it is against law and public policy; that the proceedings where it was approved is
null and void, there being no appearance and participation of the Solicitor General or the Provincial
Prosecutor; that it was timely repudiated; and that the respondent, having been convicted of
adultery, is therefore disqualified from sharing in the conjugal property

ISSUE:

1. WON a compromise agreement entered into by spouses, one of whom was convicted of adultery,
giving the convicted spouse a share in the conjugal property, valid and legal.

HELD: Yes. The contention that the Compromise Agreement is tantamount to a circumvention of the law
prohibiting the guilty spouse from sharing in the conjugal properties is misplaced. Existing law and
jurisprudence do not impose such disqualification.

Under Article 143 of the Family Code, separation of property may be effected voluntarily or for sufficient
cause, subject to judicial approval. The questioned Compromise Agreement which was judicially approved
is exactly such a separation of property allowed under the law. This conclusion holds true even if the
proceedings for the declaration of nullity of marriage was still pending. However, the Court must stress that
this voluntary separation of property is subject to the rights of all creditors of the conjugal partnership of
gains and other persons with pecuniary interest pursuant to Article 136 of the Family Code.

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