Antonio and Consuelo were married in 1971.
Years later, however, Antonio filed a petition to declare the marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. After trial, the court agreed and declared the marriage null and void.
What would happen to the family home and the other properties acquired during the relationship?
Antonio argued that the Family Code provisions governing the liquidation of the absolute community or conjugal partnership should apply. Under those rules, the family home may be awarded to the spouse with whom the majority of the children choose to remain.
The trial court disagreed.
According to the RTC, because the marriage was void from the beginning, the parties’ property relations were governed by Article 147 of the Family Code. As a result, the properties were owned by Antonio and Consuelo in equal shares under the rules on co-ownership. Who was correct?
The trial court. The Supreme Court explained that a void marriage produces a different property regime from a valid marriage. In a valid marriage, spouses are ordinarily governed by either the absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership of gains. When those regimes are dissolved, Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code prescribe detailed rules for liquidation and distribution.
A void marriage is different. According to the Court, when a man and a woman are legally capable of marrying each other but their marriage is void, their property relations during cohabitation are governed by Article 147 of the Family Code. Under that provision, wages and salaries are owned in equal shares, and property acquired through their work or industry is governed by the rules on co-ownership. Property acquired during the union is presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts and is likewise presumed to belong to them equally.
The Court emphasized that because the marriage was void, there was never a valid absolute community or conjugal partnership to liquidate.
Consequently, the provisions governing the liquidation of those property regimes did not apply. Instead, the parties simply owned the properties in common, and the ordinary rules on co-ownership governed their partition.
The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Antonio and Consuelo owned the family home and their other common properties in equal shares, subject to the rules on co-ownership.
Accordingly, the Court sustained the directive to liquidate and partition the properties under Article 147 of the Family Code and the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership.