ASG Law

Tag: Article 147

  • Navigating Property Division After a Void Marriage: Insights from Philippine Supreme Court Rulings

    Key Takeaway: Understanding Property Division in Void Marriages

    Simon R. Paterno v. Dina Marie Lomongo Paterno, G.R. No. 213687, January 08, 2020

    Imagine waking up one day to find that the marriage you thought was valid has been declared null and void. Suddenly, the home you’ve shared and the assets you’ve built together are thrown into legal limbo. This was the reality for Simon and Dina Paterno, whose case before the Philippine Supreme Court sheds light on the complex issue of property division after a void marriage.

    The Paterno case centers on the division of properties acquired during a marriage later declared void due to psychological incapacity. The key legal question was whether properties acquired after the couple’s de facto separation but before the final declaration of nullity should be considered part of the conjugal partnership.

    Legal Context: Property Relations in Void Marriages

    In the Philippines, the property relations of parties in a void marriage are governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code. These provisions aim to protect the rights of both parties and ensure a fair division of assets.

    Article 147 applies when a man and a woman, who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively together under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage. Under this article, properties acquired during their cohabitation are presumed to be obtained through their joint efforts and owned in equal shares.

    Article 148 governs situations where one or both parties are incapacitated to marry each other, such as when there’s a legal impediment. Here, the property regime is more restrictive, and only properties acquired by both through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions.

    The term “acquired” is crucial. As the Supreme Court noted, “For as long as the property had been purchased, whether on installment, financing or other mode of payment, during the period of cohabitation, the disputable presumption that they have been obtained by the parties’ joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares, shall arise.”

    Consider a couple who buys a house together during their marriage but continues to pay for it after they separate. If their marriage is later declared void, the house’s ownership could be contested. The Paterno case clarifies that the property’s acquisition date, not the completion of payment, determines its status under the law.

    Case Breakdown: The Paterno’s Journey Through the Courts

    Simon and Dina Paterno were married in 1987 but separated in 1998. In 2000, Simon filed for the declaration of nullity of their marriage, which was granted in 2005 on grounds of mutual psychological incapacity. The couple owned several properties, including a house in Ayala Alabang and a condominium in Rockwell, which were purchased during their marriage but still being paid for after their separation.

    The legal battle began when Dina sought a partial distribution of her share in the conjugal partnership and an increase in monthly support. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted her motion, ordering the partial delivery of her share and increasing the support to P250,000.00 monthly. Simon appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the RTC’s decision.

    Simon then brought the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the properties paid for after their separation should not be part of the co-ownership. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating, “The term ‘acquired’ must be taken in its ordinary acceptation. For as long as the property had been purchased, whether on installment, financing or other mode of payment, during the period of cohabitation, the disputable presumption that they have been obtained by the parties’ joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares, shall arise.”

    The Court further clarified that the presumption of equal sharing could be rebutted if Simon could prove that the properties were not obtained through their joint efforts. It emphasized, “The petitioner may rebut the presumption by presenting proof that the properties, although acquired during the period of their cohabitation, were not obtained through their joint efforts, work and industry.”

    On the issue of support, the Court ruled that the increase was improper since two of their daughters had reached the age of majority and Dina no longer had the authority to claim support on their behalf. The Court stated, “If such is the case, respondent ceased to have the authority to claim support in their behalf. In increasing the amount of support due from petitioner based on the needs of all three children, the RTC gravely abused its discretion.”

    Practical Implications: Navigating Property Division and Support

    The Paterno case provides crucial guidance for couples whose marriages are declared void. It clarifies that properties purchased during the marriage, even if still being paid for after separation, are presumed to be co-owned. This ruling can impact how couples approach property division in similar situations.

    For individuals going through a similar legal battle, it’s essential to gather evidence of contributions to property acquisition. If one party can prove that they solely funded the property after separation, they might be able to claim a larger share.

    Regarding support, the case highlights the importance of assessing the needs of minor children and the authority of the custodial parent to claim support on their behalf. As circumstances change, such as children reaching the age of majority, support obligations may need to be adjusted.

    Key Lessons:

    • Properties acquired during marriage, even if still being paid for after separation, are presumed to be co-owned.
    • The presumption of equal sharing can be rebutted with evidence of sole contribution.
    • Support obligations must be reassessed as children reach the age of majority.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What happens to properties bought during a marriage that is later declared void?
    Properties purchased during the marriage are presumed to be co-owned, even if payments continue after separation.

    Can the presumption of equal sharing be challenged?
    Yes, if one party can prove that they solely funded the property after separation, they may claim a larger share.

    How does a void marriage affect support obligations?
    Support obligations end between spouses upon the final decree of nullity, but continue for minor children.

    What should I do if my marriage is declared void and we own properties together?
    Seek legal advice to assess your contributions to the properties and negotiate a fair division.

    Can support be adjusted after a child reaches the age of majority?
    Yes, support obligations should be reassessed as children reach adulthood.

    ASG Law specializes in family law and property disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Navigating Property Rights in Void Marriages: The Impact of Perez v. Perez-Senerpida on Filipino Couples

    Understanding Property Rights in Void Marriages: Key Takeaways from Perez v. Perez-Senerpida

    Perez, Jr. v. Perez-Senerpida, G.R. No. 233365, March 24, 2021

    Imagine inheriting a family property, only to find out years later that the title transfer was invalid because of a void marriage. This is the reality that many Filipinos face, where property disputes can unravel family ties and leave individuals in legal limbo. The Supreme Court case of Perez, Jr. v. Perez-Senerpida delves into the complex world of property rights within void marriages, shedding light on the legal intricacies that can affect countless families across the Philippines.

    The case centers around a property dispute between Nicxon L. Perez, Jr., and Avegail Perez-Senerpida, following the death of Eliodoro Perez. At the heart of the matter was a deed of donation executed by Eliodoro in favor of Nicxon, which was challenged by Avegail due to the absence of her mother’s consent. The central legal question was whether the donation was valid given the void marriage between Eliodoro and Adelita Perez.

    The Legal Framework Governing Property in Void Marriages

    In the Philippines, the Family Code provides the legal framework for property relations between spouses, including those in void marriages. Article 147 of the Family Code is particularly relevant, stating that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other live exclusively as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their property acquired during cohabitation is governed by the rules on co-ownership.

    This article further specifies that neither party can encumber or dispose of their share in the property without the consent of the other until after the termination of their cohabitation. This provision aims to protect the rights of both parties in a void marriage, ensuring that neither can unilaterally dispose of jointly acquired property.

    Moreover, Article 87 of the Family Code prohibits donations between spouses during marriage, extending this prohibition to individuals living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. This is to prevent exploitation and undue influence within such relationships.

    These legal principles are crucial for understanding the implications of property transactions in void marriages. For example, if a couple living together under a void marriage buys a house, both are presumed to have equal ownership unless proven otherwise, and neither can sell or donate their share without the other’s consent.

    The Story of Perez v. Perez-Senerpida: A Chronological Journey

    The case began with Eliodoro and Adelita Perez, who were married in 1975. Their marriage was later declared void ab initio in 2005. During their cohabitation, they owned a property which Adelita renounced in favor of Eliodoro through a Renunciation and Waiver of Rights (RWR) in 1995. Subsequently, in 2004, Eliodoro donated this property to his grandson, Nicxon Perez, Jr., without Adelita’s consent.

    Following Eliodoro’s death in 2008, Avegail Perez-Senerpida, one of Eliodoro and Adelita’s children, challenged the donation, arguing that the RWR and the subsequent deed of donation were void due to the lack of Adelita’s consent. The case moved through the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), with both courts ruling in favor of Avegail, annulling the RWR and the deed of donation.

    The Supreme Court’s decision focused on the validity of the marriage and the property regime. Despite the lower courts’ belief that the marriage was valid until Eliodoro’s death, the Supreme Court clarified that the marriage was void ab initio from the 2005 ruling. The Court emphasized that under Article 147, Eliodoro could not have donated the property without Adelita’s consent.

    Key quotes from the Supreme Court’s reasoning include:

    “Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.”

    “The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.”

    The procedural steps included:

    • The RTC’s decision to annul the RWR and the deed of donation.
    • The CA’s affirmation of the RTC’s decision, upholding the necessity of Adelita’s consent.
    • The Supreme Court’s review, which clarified the legal status of the marriage and the applicable property regime.

    Practical Implications and Key Lessons

    The Perez v. Perez-Senerpida ruling underscores the importance of understanding the legal implications of property transactions within void marriages. For individuals in similar situations, it is crucial to ensure that any property disposition during cohabitation has the consent of both parties to avoid future disputes.

    Businesses and property owners should be aware that property acquired during a void marriage is governed by co-ownership rules, and any unilateral disposition can be challenged. This ruling may affect future cases by reinforcing the need for consent in property transactions within void marriages.

    Key Lessons:

    • Always obtain the consent of both parties for any property disposition in a void marriage.
    • Be aware of the legal status of your marriage and its impact on property rights.
    • Consult legal professionals to ensure compliance with the Family Code provisions.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is a void marriage?

    A void marriage is one that is considered invalid from the beginning, often due to reasons such as psychological incapacity or lack of legal capacity to marry.

    Can property be donated in a void marriage?

    No, under Article 147 of the Family Code, neither party can dispose of their share in the property acquired during cohabitation without the other’s consent until after the termination of their cohabitation.

    What happens to property acquired during a void marriage?

    Property acquired during a void marriage is governed by the rules on co-ownership, meaning both parties have equal shares unless proven otherwise.

    Is a waiver of property rights valid in a void marriage?

    No, a waiver of property rights without valuable consideration between parties in a void marriage is void under Article 87 of the Family Code.

    How can I protect my property rights in a void marriage?

    Ensure that any property transaction has the consent of both parties and consult with a legal professional to understand your rights and obligations.

    What should I do if I’m involved in a property dispute from a void marriage?

    Seek legal advice immediately to understand your rights and the best course of action to resolve the dispute.

    Can a court decision on a void marriage affect property rights?

    Yes, a court decision declaring a marriage void ab initio can significantly impact property rights, as seen in Perez v. Perez-Senerpida.

    ASG Law specializes in Family Law and Property Rights. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Property Rights in Void Marriages: Understanding Co-Ownership Under the Family Code

    Navigating Property Division in Void Marriages: A Guide to Article 147 of the Family Code

    n

    G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011 (Alain M. Diño vs. Ma. Caridad L. Diño)

    n

    Imagine a couple who have lived together for years, building a life and acquiring property. However, their marriage is later declared void due to some legal impediment. What happens to their shared assets? This is a common and complex situation governed by specific provisions of the Family Code, particularly Article 147. This article elucidates the rules of co-ownership applicable to couples in void marriages, focusing on the equal division of assets acquired through joint effort.

    nn

    Introduction: The Quandary of Property in Null Marriages

    n

    When a marriage is declared void, it’s as if it never existed in the eyes of the law. But what about the property accumulated during the time the couple lived together? The Family Code provides specific rules to govern these situations, ensuring fairness and clarity in dividing assets. The case of Alain M. Diño vs. Ma. Caridad L. Diño provides valuable insights into how these rules are applied, especially concerning the timing of property liquidation.

    n

    In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that in marriages declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity), the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties under Article 147 need not precede the issuance of the decree of absolute nullity. This distinction is crucial for understanding the procedural aspects of nullity cases involving property division.

    nn

    Legal Context: Unpacking Article 147 of the Family Code

    n

    Article 147 of the Family Code addresses the property relations of couples who are capacitated to marry each other but whose marriage is void. This article establishes a regime of co-ownership, where assets acquired during the cohabitation are presumed to be owned equally by both parties.

    n

    Specifically, Article 147 states:

    n

    Article 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

    n

    This means that even if the marriage is void, the efforts of both parties in acquiring property are recognized. For example, if a couple jointly operates a business during their cohabitation, the profits and assets of that business are generally considered co-owned.

    n

    Moreover, the law recognizes the contribution of a spouse who may not have directly participated in the acquisition of property but has contributed to the family’s well-being. The Family Code states that the efforts of taking care of the family and household are considered as contribution to the acquisition of properties.

    n

    It is important to note that this article does not apply to same-sex relationships. It explicitly refers to

  • Dividing Assets in Void Marriages: Upholding Joint Effort and Contribution

    In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that when a marriage is declared void, properties acquired during the union should be divided equally between the parties, especially when both contributed to their acquisition. This decision underscores the principle that even in the absence of a valid marriage, the efforts and contributions of both partners towards accumulating wealth must be recognized and compensated fairly. This applies even if one partner’s contribution involves care and maintenance of the family.

    Fiesta Pizza and Failed Vows: How Should Assets Be Divided?

    Francisco and Erminda Gonzales began their life together in 1977 and married in 1979, bearing four children. In 1992, Erminda sought to annul their marriage, citing Francisco’s psychological incapacity marked by abuse and infidelity. She also requested a division of properties they acquired during their union, largely from their pizza business. Francisco countered, alleging Erminda’s incapacity and claiming sole ownership of the properties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage void and ordered the division of conjugal properties. Dissatisfied with the property distribution, Francisco appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s decision, leading to this petition before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the division of properties ordered by the lower courts was fair and in accordance with applicable laws, particularly given the void nature of the marriage.

    The Supreme Court anchored its decision on Article 147 of the Family Code, which governs property relations in void marriages where parties are capacitated to marry each other. This article stipulates that wages and salaries shall be owned in equal shares, and properties acquired through work or industry shall follow co-ownership rules. It presumes that properties acquired during cohabitation result from the joint efforts of both parties, entitling them to equal shares, unless proven otherwise. Furthermore, Article 147 explicitly acknowledges the contribution of a party who cares for the family and household, deeming it as a joint contribution to the acquisition of properties.

    “ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.”

    In this case, while the properties were acquired through the pizza business, the Court noted that Erminda actively managed the business alongside Francisco. The Supreme Court cited Francisco’s own admission in a letter acknowledging Erminda’s help in building their wealth. Evidence showed Erminda managed daily operations, personnel, and outlet inspections without receiving a salary. This contradicted Francisco’s claim that Erminda was merely a housewife, highlighting her active participation in the business’s success. The ruling was a recognition of respondent’s efforts in the acquisition of properties, and therefore should be divided equally.

    The Court emphasized that its review was limited to questions of law, respecting the factual findings of the lower courts. Since both the RTC and CA found that Erminda contributed to the acquisition of the properties, the Supreme Court upheld their decisions. The High Court deferred to the factual findings of the trial court and appellate court, recognizing the established principle that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to re-evaluate evidence already considered by the lower courts.

    The Gonzales case reinforces the principle that even in the absence of a valid marriage, the contributions of both partners in acquiring properties must be recognized. It protects parties in void marriages, ensuring that their efforts, whether through direct business involvement or through household management, are justly compensated. It serves as a reminder that family codes are made for the benefit of those that are incapacitated, hence it ensures equality, even outside the bounds of a valid marriage.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The main issue was whether the properties acquired during a void marriage should be divided equally between the parties, even if one party claims sole ownership.
    What is Article 147 of the Family Code? Article 147 governs the property relations of couples in void marriages, stating that properties acquired through joint efforts are owned in equal shares. This ensures fairness in asset division when a marriage is declared invalid.
    How did the wife contribute to the acquisition of properties? The wife actively managed the pizza business, handling daily operations, personnel, and outlet inspections without receiving a salary.
    What did the Supreme Court decide? The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, ruling that the properties should be divided equally because both parties contributed to their acquisition. This decision underscores the value of each partner’s contributions, whether in direct work or household management.
    Does Article 147 apply if one partner only took care of the household? Yes, Article 147 states that if one partner’s efforts consisted of care and maintenance of the family and household, they are deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition of properties.
    What happens to properties acquired if there is no void marriage? The properties acquired are conjugal and must be divided between the spouses through the process of divorce.
    What was the reason why the marriage was void? The Regional Trial Court declared that the marriage between the parties was void because of psychological incapacity.
    Can other relatives contest for the distribution of the conjugal property? No, only the parties in the void marriage can decide to distribute their conjugal property because of the termination of their vows to one another.

    The Supreme Court’s decision serves as an important precedent for property division in void marriages, emphasizing the recognition and protection of each partner’s contributions. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to fairness and equity, even outside the bounds of traditional marital norms.

    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: FRANCISCO L. GONZALES v. ERMINDA F. GONZALES, G.R. NO. 159521, December 16, 2005