G.R. No.

102126 March 12, 1993

ANGELICA LEDESMA, petitioner,
vs.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF CIPRIANO PEDROSA represented by Nelson Jimena, Honorable Judge Bethel KatalbasMoscardon in her capacity as Presiding Judge-Designate, Branch 51, RTC, Bacolod City,respondents.
FACTS:

Petitioner Angelica Ledesma's marriage to Cipriano Pedrosa was declared a nullity by the RTC of Negros Occidental. The
Court ordered that the properties acquired by the parties at the time they were living together as common-law husband
and wife are owned by them as co-owners. With respect to the properties acquired by them during marriage which was
subsequently annulled by the Court , they will form part of the conjugal partnership of the spouses, to be dissolved and
liquidated in accordance with the provision of the Civil Code.

Pending the order of inventory of the properties, Pedrosa died leaving a last will and testament. A separate petition for
probate of the said will was filed. Nelson Jimena was named executor in the said proceeding and substituted the
deceased in the partition proceeding with regard to the annulled marriage of the latter.

Respondent Judge Katalbas-Moscardon considered the supplemental action for partition (after annulment of the
marriage) TERMINATED due to the death of one of the spouses (Pedrosa) and the pendency of intestate proceedings
over his estate.

Petitioner argues that respondent judge reneged in the performance of a lawful duty when she refrained from rendering a
decision in the partition case (RE: dissolution and distribution of conjugal properties) and considered the same closed and
terminated, due to the pendency of intestate proceedings over the deceased husband's estate.
ISSUE:
1.
2.

Whether or not it is proper to terminate the partition proceeding on account of the death of one of the spouses and the
pendency of intestate proceeding of the deceased spouses estate. NO
Where will the partition of the properties be made in the civil case where the marriage was annulled? or in the
proceeding for the settlement of estate? Civil Case

RULING:
1. The Court cited the case of Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals, where a similar issue was involved the husband also
died after the legal separation of the spouses had been finally decreed but before the actual liquidation of their community
of properties.
In the said case, the Court ruled that upon the finality of the decree of legal separation, the absolute conjugal community
property of the spouses shall be dissolved and liquidated. Upon the liquidation and distribution conformably with the law
governing the effects of the final decree of legal separation, the law on intestate succession should take over in the
disposition of whatever remaining properties have been allocated to petitioner. This procedure involves details which
properly pertain to the lower court.
The Macadangdang decision involved legal separation but the doctrine enunciated therein should be applied to a
marriage annulment which is the situation at bar. The respondent presiding judge is directed to decide the partition
(liquidation) case and determine which of the properties of the conjugal partnership should be adjudicated to the husband
and the wife. Any properties that may be adjudicated to the deceased husband Pedrosa can then be distributed in
accordance with his last will and testament in the special proceedings involving his estate.

2.

The partition shall be done in the civil case rather than in the settlement proceedings because the law mandates the
dissolution and liquidation of the property regime of the spouses upon finality of the decree annulling the marriage.
Such dissolution and liquidation are necessary consequences of the final decree of nullity. The legal effect of the decree
of annulment of marriage ipso facto or automatically follows as an inevitable incident of the judgment decreeing
annulment of the marriage for the purpose of determining the share of each spouse in their assets. A division of the
property in a supplemental decision is a mere incident to the decree of annulment.
The court when acting as testate or intestate court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It is so limited in the sense
that it is only confined in the issue of settlement or division of the properties of the deceased. It cannot extend to
collateral matters which are not related.