Facts:

Selanova charged Judge Mendoza with gross ignorance of the law for
preparing and ratifying a document extra judicially liquidating the conjugal
partnership of the complainant and his wife. One condition of the liquidation
was that either spouse would withdraw the complaint for adultery or
concubinage which each had filed against the other and that they waived
their right to prosecute each other for whatever acts of infidelity either one
would commit against the other. Respondent relied on Art 191 of the old Civil
Code that states the husband and wife may agree upon the dissolution of the
conjugal partnership during the marriage, subject to judicial approval. The
judge ratified the document without judicial approval from CFI Negros where
the couple was residing, making it void assuming arguendo that Art. 191 is
still in effect.
Issue:
WON the agreement separating the conjugal property and the spouses is
void.
Held:
It is void. Under Art. 221 of the Civil Code, the following shall be void:
Any contract for personal separation between husband and wife;
Every extrajudicial agreement during marriage, for the dissolution of the
conjugal partnership of gains or of the absolute community property
between husband and wife.
While adultery and concubinage are private crimes, they are crimes
punishable by the RPC, and a contract legalizing their commission is contrary
to law, morals and public order, and as a consequence not judicially
recognizable.

A notary should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and

the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and
extrajudically dissolving the conjugal partnership. Notaries were
severely censured by this Court for notarizing documents which
subvert the institutions of marriage and the family (Selanova vs.
Mendoza, Adm. Matter No. 804-CJ, May 19, 1975, 64 SCRA 69; Miranda vs.
Fuentes, Adm. Case No. 241, April 30, 1966, 16 SCRA 802; Biton vs.
Momongan, supra,, Panganiban vs. Borromeo, 58 Phil. 367; In re Santiago,
70 Phil. 66; Balinon vs. De Leon, 94 Phil. 277).

To preserve the institutions of marriage and the family, the law

considers as void "any contract for personal separation between
husband and wife" and "every extrajudicial agreement, during the
marriage, for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership" (Art. 221,
Civil Code). Before the new Civil Code, it was held that the extrajudicial
dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial sanction was void
(Quintana vs. Lerma, 24 Phil. 285; De Luna vs. Linatoc, 74 Phil. 15).

The agreement in question is void because it contravenes the following

provisions of the Civil Code:t.hqw
ART. 221. The following shall be void and of no effect:
(1) Any contract for personal separation between husband and
wife;
(2) Every extrajudicial agreement, during marriage, for the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains or of the absolute
community of property between husband and wife;