107LOREADEUGALDE,petitioner,vs.

JONDEYSASI,respondent.
[G.R.No.130623;February29,2008]
TOPIC:
13. DissolutionofACP,FC99,102,43(2);
FC63(2),104>(d)Judicialseparationofproperty,FC134
138
PONENTE:CARPIO,J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES:(ifapplicable)

FACTS:(chronologicalorder)
1.

On15February1951,LoreadeUgalde(petitioner)andJondeYsasi(respondent)gotmarriedbeforeMunicipalJudgeRemigio
PeaofHinigaran,NegrosOccidental.On1March1951,4Rev.Msgr.FlavianoArriolasolemnizedtheirchurchweddingatthe
SanSebastianCathedralinBacolodCity.Petitionerandrespondentdidnotexecuteanyantenuptialagreement.Theyhadason
namedJondeYsasiIII.
2. PetitionerandrespondentseparatedsometimeinApril1957. 5On26May1964,respondentallegedlycontractedanothermarriage
withVictoriaEleanorSmith(Smith)beforeJudgeLucioM.TancoofPasayCity.Petitionerfurtherallegedthatrespondentand
Smithhadbeenacquiringanddisposingofrealandpersonalpropertiestoherprejudiceasthelawfulwife.Petitionerallegedthat
shehadbeendefraudedofrentalincome,profits,andfruitsoftheirconjugalproperties.
3. Petitionerfiled apetitionfor dissolutionoftheconjugal partnershipofgainsagainst respondent beforethe RTC ofNegros
Occidental.
4. Thereafter, respondent contended that he and the petitioner entered into an agreement which provides that their conjugal
partnershipshallbedeemeddissolved.Pursuanttothis,anAmicableSettlementwassubmittedtotheCFIofNegrosOccidental.
5. CFIapprovedtheAmicableSettlement.
6. RespondentlikewiseallegedthatpetitioneralreadyobtainedadivorcefromhimbeforetheSupremeCourtofMexico.Petitioner
thencontractedasecondmarriagewithRichardGalowayanduponthelattersdeath,shecontractedathirdmarriagewithFrank
Scholey.
7. Respondentmovedforthedismissalofthepetitionfordissolutionoftheconjugalpartnershipofgainsonthegroundsofestoppel,
laches,andresjudicata.Further,respondentallegedthattheirmarriagewasvoidbecauseitwasexecutedwithoutthebenefitofa
marriagelicense.
8. Thetrialcourtruledthattherewasnoconjugalpartnershipofgainsandthatsincetheyenteredintoanamicablesettlementwhich
waslateronapproved,thepetitionermaynolongerrepudiateit.
9. TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourt.
ISSUE(S):WhetherornottheactionforthedissolutionoftheCPGshouldbedismissed.
HELD:YES.
RATIO:
Petitionerandrespondentweremarriedon15February1951.Thus,theapplicablelawistheCivilCode(RA386).
UnderArticle175oftheCivilCode,thejudicialseparationofpropertyresultsintheterminationoftheconjugalpartnershipofgains:
Art.175.Theconjugalpartnershipofgainsterminates:
(1)Uponthedeathofeitherspouse;
(2)Whenthereisadecreeoflegalseparation;
(3)Whenthemarriageisannulled;
(4)IncaseofjudicialseparationofpropertyunderArticle191.
Thefinalityofthecivilcaseapprovingthepartiesseparationofpropertyresultedintheterminationoftheconjugalpartnershipof
gainsinaccordancewithArticle175oftheFamilyCode.Hence,whenthetrialcourtdecidedinthespecialproceeding,theconjugal
partnershipbetweenpetitionerandrespondentwasalreadydissolved.
Regardingthedissolutionofconjugalpartnershipofgains,theexistenceofconjugalpartnershipofgainsispredicatedona
valid marriage, which petitioner and respondent dont have due to the absence of a marriage license. Petitioner and
respondentsmarriagewasheldonFebruary1951,andtheapplicablelawwastheCivilCode.SowhentheRTCdecidedtheir
case,theconjugalpartnershipwasalreadydissolved.
CASELAW/DOCTRINE:

DISSENTING/CONCURRINGOPINION(S):