The Supreme Court ruled that filing a separate petition for the determination of paraphernal property during the pendency of a marriage nullity case constitutes forum shopping. This decision clarifies that trial courts, upon the filing of a petition for nullity, acquire jurisdiction over all incidental matters, including the settlement of common properties. Splitting causes of action by filing separate petitions is a violation of the prohibition against forum shopping and warrants the dismissal of the subsequent case.

Double Jeopardy in Property Disputes: When a Nullity Case Bars a Second Bite at the Apple

Arturo and Dolores Tanyag were married in 1979, before the enactment of the Family Code, thus subjecting their property relations to the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. In 2004, Dolores filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, citing Arturo’s psychological incapacity. During the pendency of this case, she also filed a separate Petition for Declaration of Paraphernal Property, seeking to have two parcels of land declared as her exclusive property. Arturo challenged this second petition, arguing litis pendentia and forum shopping, given the ongoing nullity proceedings. The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage null and void, and Dolores moved to liquidate their properties in the nullity case. However, this motion was denied, prompting both parties to appeal. Meanwhile, Arturo’s motion to dismiss the property case based on primary jurisdiction, litis pendentia, and forum shopping was also denied, leading to further appeals. The central legal question is whether the separate Petition for Declaration of Paraphernal Property is barred by litis pendentia due to the pending nullity case.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of litis pendentia and forum shopping, emphasizing their relationship to the principle of res judicata. The Court cited Pavlow v. Mendenilla, elucidating that forum shopping arises from res judicata, with litis pendentia as a related concept. Forum shopping occurs when a party files multiple suits in different courts to obtain favorable rulings on the same causes or reliefs. It can manifest as filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively. The test for determining forum shopping involves assessing the presence of litis pendentia or whether a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in another. This hinges on the identity of parties, rights, causes of action, and reliefs sought across the cases.

Litis pendentia requires the existence of another pending action between the same parties for the same cause, rendering the second action unnecessary and vexatious. The requisites include identity of parties, rights asserted and relief prayed for founded on the same facts, and identity of the two cases such that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. On the other hand, res judicata bars a subsequent case when the former judgment is final, rendered by a court with jurisdiction, is a judgment on the merits, and involves identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this case, the requisites of litis pendentia are met.

While the causes of action in the nullity and property cases may initially appear distinct, there is an underlying identity of rights asserted and relief sought, particularly concerning property ownership. The outcome of the nullity case directly impacts the property relations between the parties. A declaration of nullity based on psychological incapacity results in a special co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code. As held in Tan-Andal v. Andal, void marriages do not invoke the property regimes of absolute community or conjugal partnership. Instead, properties are governed by Article 147 or 148, depending on the parties’ legal capacity to marry. Therefore, the determination of nullity influences whether a conjugal partnership exists and, consequently, the applicable rules governing the properties.

In Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, the Supreme Court addressed a similar case involving the declaration of absolute nullity based on psychological incapacity. The Court clarified that settling the parties’ common property is an incidental and consequential matter within the jurisdiction of the trial court handling the nullity case. Article 147 of the Family Code governs co-ownership when parties, without legal impediments, live exclusively together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without marriage. Properties acquired through joint efforts are presumed equally owned, and contributions include household care. This contrasts with conjugal partnership, where fruits of separate property are included in the co-ownership.

Notably, Dolores had previously filed a Motion to Liquidate, Partition, and Distribute in the Nullity Case, acknowledging the trial court’s authority to liquidate the co-ownership. Although this motion was initially denied, the Court of Appeals later granted Petitions for Certiorari, citing grave abuse of discretion for failing to proceed with the partition. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court stated that:

Section 21. Liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes. – Upon entry of the judgment granting the petition, or, in case of appeal, upon receipt of the entry of judgment of the appellate court granting the petition, the Family Court, on motion of either party, shall proceed with the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, including custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.

The Court ultimately found Dolores guilty of forum shopping. According to Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, forum shopping occurs when a party repetitively seeks judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, based on the same essential facts and raising the same issues. This includes filing multiple cases on the same cause of action with the same or different prayers, leading to litis pendentia or res judicata. As the Supreme Court articulated in Asia United Bank v. Goodland Co., Inc.:

There is forum shopping “when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.”

Upon filing the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, the trial court gained jurisdiction over incidental and consequential matters, including the settlement of common properties. By filing a separate Petition for Declaration of Paraphernal Property, Dolores improperly sought a determination of property ownership in a different court. Therefore, the Property Case should be dismissed based on litis pendentia if the liquidation is pending in the Nullity Case, or on res judicata if it has been resolved.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether filing a separate petition for declaration of paraphernal property during the pendency of a marriage nullity case constitutes forum shopping and is thus barred by litis pendentia.
What is litis pendentia?	Litis pendentia refers to a situation where another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, making the second action unnecessary and vexatious. It requires identity of parties, rights asserted, and causes of action.
What is forum shopping?	Forum shopping occurs when a party files multiple lawsuits in different courts based on the same cause of action, seeking a favorable ruling. It is a prohibited practice aimed at increasing the chances of a favorable outcome.
What is the effect of a declaration of nullity on property relations?	A declaration of nullity based on psychological incapacity results in a special co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code, rather than the standard conjugal property regimes. This affects how properties acquired during the marriage are treated.
Can a trial court in a nullity case settle property disputes?	Yes, the trial court handling the nullity case has jurisdiction over all incidental and consequential matters, including the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties. This is to avoid multiplicity of suits.
What is Article 147 of the Family Code?	Article 147 of the Family Code governs the property relations of couples who live together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, provided they are not legally prohibited from marrying. It stipulates equal co-ownership of properties acquired through joint efforts.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Court ruled that Dolores was guilty of forum shopping, and the Petition for Declaration of Paraphernal Property was dismissed. The Court emphasized that the trial court in the nullity case had jurisdiction over all property-related issues.
What is res judicata and how is it related to this case?	Res judicata is a legal principle that prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has already been decided by a court. If the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties had already been finalized in the Nullity Case, the Property Case would be barred by res judicata.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Tanyag v. Tanyag reinforces the principle that courts handling marriage nullity cases have comprehensive jurisdiction over all related matters, including property disputes. Filing separate actions to determine property rights while a nullity case is pending constitutes forum shopping and is subject to dismissal, ensuring judicial efficiency and preventing inconsistent rulings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ARTURO C. TANYAG, PETITIONER, VS. DOLORES G. TANYAG, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 231319, November 10, 2021