E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Villanueva vs. CA
Doctrine:
Keywords: pregnant, child died, pending bigamy
Nature: Appeal against CA decision
Date: October 27, 2006
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J
Petitioner: Orlando Villanueva
Respondent: Lilia Villanueva
April 13, 1988-marriage
November 17, 1992- filed in RTC, annulment of marriage
-FORCE, DURESS, INTIMIDATION-threats of violence and duress
forced him into marrying Lilia (threats to his life), who was already
pregnant
-FRAUD-he did not get her pregnant prior to the marriage (did not
have an erection but Jan 1988, went to hotel)
-never cohabited with her after the marriage
-child died during delivery Aug. 29, 1988
-reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave
danger to his life and safety: phone calls, stangers, three men at UE,
Ka Celso NPA (hired by Lilia)
Lilia (defense):
-petitioner voluntarily married her
-knew about progress of pregnancy, their son born prematurely
-moral damages and attorneys fees
-13 letters (Orlando only claimed 7, but binawi after)
RTC: dismissed plus damages plus attorneys fees
CA: affirmed
Issue: whether the subject marriage may be annulled on the ground of
vitiated consent.
Held: Not proven.
Ratio:
1. April 13, 1988 to Nov 17, 1992 not less than 4 years 8 months only
then he took action?--for bigamy case which was then already
pending against him

Kirby Hipolito
2.danger: security guard, knows basic self-defense, never sought
assistance of security personnel, did not he inform the judge
about his predicament prior to solemnizing their marriage.
3.FRAUD: outright lie
4.Undermined Lilias credibility: child died Aug 29, 1989 not
1988 (no controversy)
5. If he was laboring under duress when he made the admission,
where did he find the temerity to deny his involvement with
the remaining six (6) letters?
6. Lack of cohabitation is, per se, not a ground to annul a
marriage. relevant only if it arises as a result of the
perpetration of any of the grounds for annulling the marriage,
such as lack of parental consent, insanity, fraud, intimidation,
or undue influence
Disposition: CA affirmed, but no damages

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Jimenez vs. Canizares
Doctrine:
Keywords: genitals too small
Nature: Appeal against CFI decision
Date: August 31, 1960
Ponente: Padilla J
Petitioner: Joel Jimenez
Defendant: Remedios Caizares
Aug 3, 1950- marriage before a judge
June 7 ,1955- CFI annulment of marriage
Joel Jimenez: her genitals or vagina was to small to allow the
penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation, existing at the
time of marriage and continues to exist, he left the conjugal home
two nights and one day after they had been married
Court Order: physical examination of lady physician
Warning: failure to undergo medical examination and submit the
required doctor's certificate would be deemed lack of interest on her
part in the case and that judgment upon the evidence presented by
her husband would be rendered.
CFI- April 11, 1957- annulled
MR-city attorney- defendant's impotency has not been satisfactorily
established as required by law, dapat contempt of court
Did not answer, absent, and refused to submit to physical
examination
Issue: Can the annulment case be decided even without the presence of
physical examination certificate?
Held: No
1. The law specifically enumerates the legal grounds, that must be
proved to exist by indubitable evidence, to annul a marriage.
2.Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be deemed to have been
satisfactorily established
3.She is not being compelled to be a witness against herself
4.such attitude the presumption arising out of the suppression of
evidence could not arise or be inferred because women of this
country are by nature coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to

Kirby Hipolito
a physical examination unless compelled to by competent
authority.
5. "Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be
presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency."
Disposition: CFI decision set aside, case remanded to lower court
for further proceedings

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Sarao vs. Guevarra
PONENTE: Reyes, A.
DATE: May 31, 1940
NATURE: annulment of marriage on the ground of impotency
FACTS:
June 3, 1936: Felix Sarao and Pilar Guevarra were married
Felix wanted to have carnal knowledge of Pilar but she was
reluctant and said that they should wait till the evening
Felix found the orifice of Pilars vagina sufficiently large for his
organ but she complained of pains in her private part and he
noticed oozing therefrom some purulent matter offensive to
the smell
Coitus was not a success
Every attempt on Felixs part to have a carnal act with hid wife
proved a failure because she complained of pains in her
genitalia
Pilar had a medical check up and found out that her uterus and
ovaries were affected with tumor; the organs were surgically
removed with the consent of Felix
The surgery rendered Pilar incapable of procreation but did
not incapacitate her of copulation
Felix after the operation lost all desire to have access with his
wife and has not tried to do it since
RTC: dismissed complaint
ISSUES:
Whether the marriage may be annulled on the ground of impotency
HELD/DECISION:
No. Dismissed complaint
RATIO:
Sec. 30 Act No. 3613: Marriage may be annulled if either party
was, at the time of marriage, physically incapable of entering
into the married state, and such incapacity continues, and
appears to be incurable
Test of impotency: not the ability to procreate but the ability to
copulate; the defect must be one of copulation, not of
reproduction. Barrenness will not invalidate the marriage; a
temporary or occasional incapacity for copulation is not a

Kirby Hipolito
ground for decree of nullity. The defect must be
permanent and lasting
Pilar was not impotent at the time she married Felix. The
tumor did not render her incapable of copulation or even
procreation. The removal of the body parts rendered her
sterile but it by no made her unfit for sexual intercourse

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Armas vs. Calisterio
Doctrine: Subsequent marriages due to absence under the civil code:
judicial declaration unnecessary
Keywords: 11 years absent
Nature: appeal against CA decision
Date: April 6, 2000
Ponente: Vitug, J
Petitioner: Antonia Armas (surviving sister of Teodorico Calisterio)
Respondent: Marietta Calisterio
January 13, 1946-Marietta & James William Bounds, disappeared
February 11, 1947, absent for 11 years
May 8, 1958- T&M without priorly securing a court declaration that
James was presumptively dead
April 24, 1992, Teodorico died intestate, several parcels of lang
P604,750
RTC- October 9, 1992- Antonia claims to be the sole heir, marriage
bigamous null and void
Sinfroniano C. Armas be the admin
RTC: Armas the sole heir
CA: reversed
Issue: Is a judicial declaration necessary under the civil code?
Held: No.
1. A judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is not
necessary as long as the prescribed period of absence is met.
Civil Code: absent 7 consecutive years without the spouse present
having news of the absentee being alive. Or
though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally
considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at
the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the
absentee is presumed dead according to articles 390 and 391.
2.valid "until declared null and void by a competent court." It follows
that the burden of proof would be, in these cases, on the party
assailing the second marriage.
3.1988 FC conditions:
-absent for 4 years or 2 if there is danger of death

Kirby Hipolito
-spouse present-well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
already dead
-judicial declaration or presumptive death
Disposition: CA decision affirmed

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Manuel vs. People
Doctrine: Subsequent marriages due to absence under the family code:
judicial declaration necessary
Keywords: bigamy
Nature: appeal against CA decision
Date: Nov 29, 2005
Ponente: Callejo Sr, J
Petitioner: Eduardo Manuel
Respondent: People
July 28, 1975- M1 with Rubylus Gaa Makati (then Rizal)
Rubylus-estafa 1975, visited jail after 3 months and never saw her
again
April 22, 1996-M2 with Tina Gandalera; T-21, E-39
Met in Dagupan Jan 1996
E went to Baguio to visit her, checked in motel (Tina resisted)
Presented himself as single, even brought his parents
Happy in the 1st 3 years
1999, Manuel made himself scarce and appeared only twice, thrice a
year (Baguio City)
slap her when she askes money
Jan 2001, E took all his clothes, left, did not return, stopped giving
financial support
Aug 2001, Tina made inquiries NSO found out existence of M1
Defense:
-met Tina in 1995 bar GRO
-informed Tina of previous marriage but nevertheless agreed
-marital relationship OK until love-bite
-single because he believe in good faith that M1 is invalid, did not
know JD necessary absent for 21 years, threatened him to commit
suicide
-JD designed merely to enable the spouse present to contract a valid
second marriage and not for the acquittal of one charged with
bigamy.
Nov 7, 2001 filed in RTC bigamy by Tina
RTC: guilty
CA: guilty
Issue: Is there bigamy?

Kirby Hipolito
Held: Yes
1. Article 41 of the Family Code should apply.
2.(1) an undissolved marriage; (2) a new marriage; and (3)
fraudulent intention constituting the felony of the act
3.Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 41
of the Family Code.
4.Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code has made the dissolution
of marriage dependent not only upon the personal belief of
parties, but upon certain objective facts easily capable of
accurate judicial cognizance
5. Such provision was designed to harmonize civil law and Article
349 of the Revised Penal Code, and put to rest the confusion
spawned by the rulings of this Court and comments of eminent
authorities on Criminal Law.
Disposition: CA decision affirmed

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

SSS vs. Jarque vda. De Bailon
PONENTE: Carpio-Morales
DATE: March 24, 2006
NATURE: Presumption of death
April 25, 1955: Clemente Bailon and Alice Diaz contracted
marriage
October 9, 1970: Bailon filed for a presumptive declaration of
death of Alice andit was granted
August 8, 1983: Bailon contracted marriage with Teresita
Jarque
January 30, 1998: Bailon died; member of SSS since 1960,
retiree pensioner since July 1994
Jarque filed a claim for funeral benefits; additional claim for
benefits was also granted
Cecilia Bailon-Yap (daughter of Bailon and Elisa Jayona)
contested the release of the funds since they were the ones who
spent for the funeral
Cecilia: Bailon contracted 3 marriages: Alice, Elisa and Jarque
Hermes Diaz claiming to be the brother and guardian of Alice
filed for benefits from Bailons death
SSS through Atty. Marites dela Torre recommended the
cancellation of payment of death pension benefits to Jarque
and the issuance of an order of refund
SSS informed Jarque of the cancellation of her benefits;
marriage with Bailon is null and void since it was contracted
while the marriage to Alice was still subsisting
Alice: it is not true that she disappeared and Bailon could have
easily located her since she was staying with her parents in
Sorsogon
Jarque filed a case gainst the SSC and the SSS
SSC: withdrew Jarques benefits and declared her marriage to
Bailon null and void
CA: reversed decision
ISSUES:
Whether Jarques marriage to Bailon was null and void
HELD/DECISION:
No. petition denied.

Kirby Hipolito
The SSC is empowered to settle any dispute with respect to
the SSC coverage; cannot review much less reversed
decisions rendered by courts
Art. 83 of the NCC
Marriages deemed valid until declared null and void by a
competent court
Bailon sought judicial declaration of her presumptive
death which is not a requirement then for purposes of
remarriage
Family Code: if the absentee reappears but no step is
taken to terminate the subsequent marriage either by
affidavit or y court action, such absentees mere
reappearance, even if made known to the spouses in the
subsequent marriage, will not terminate such marriage.
Since the 2nd marriage has been contracted because of a
presumption that the former spouse is dead, such
presumption continues inspite of the spouses physical
reappearance, and by fiction of law, he or she must still be
regarded as legally an absentee until the subsequent
marriage is terminated as provided by law.
A voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except
in a direct proceeding. Consequently, such marriage can
be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not
after the death of either, in which case the parties and their
offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly
valid. Upon the death of either, the marriage cannot be
impeached, and is made good ab initio.

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Roehr vs. Rodriguez
PONENTE: Quisumbing
DATE: June 20, 2003
NATURE: property settlement and custody of children arising
from a divorce obtained abroad
FACTS:
December 11, 1980: Wolfgand Roehr (German) married
Carmen Rodriguez (Filipino) in Hamburg, Germany
February 14, 1981: marriage was ratified in Tayasan, Negros
Oriental
Daughters: Carolynne (November 18, 1981) and Alexandra
Kristine (October 25, 1987)
August 28, 1996: Roehr-declaration of nullity (denied);
Rodriguez-motion to dismiss (denied by the RTC)
Roehr: motion for reconsideration (denied), petition for
certiorari with CA (denied, remanded to RTC)
December 16, 1997: Roehr obtained a decree of divorce from
the CFI of Hamburg-Blankenese which provided for the
dissolution of the parties marriage, and custody of the
daughters to Roehr
May 20, 1999: Motion to dismiss since the RTC had no
jurisdiction over the case since a divorce decree had been
obtained already (granted)
Rodriguez-motion for reconsideration: case proceed to
determine custody of children and property distribution
Roehr: the divorce has already been recognized and the marital
tie between Roehr and Rodriguez have been severed; judge set
aside July 14, 1999 order recognizing divorce for the purpose of
settling custody and property distribution
ISSUES:
Whether or not custody of children and property relations can still
be settled in Philippine courts even if the divorce was obtained
abroad
HELD/DECISION:
Yes. Decision affirmed, trial court may settle custody
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in
our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid to the national
law of the foreigner.

Kirby Hipolito
Divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries
are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects
thereof, must still be determined by our courts.
Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a
foreign judgment, it must be shown that the parties
opposed to the judgment had been given ample
opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39
Sec. 50 of the Rules of Court
Rule 39, Sec. 50: Effect of foreign judgments. The effect
of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows:
In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the
judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing;
In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties
and their successors in interest by a subsequent title;
but the judgment may be repelled by evidence of a
want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
It is essential that there should be an opportunity to
challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court
in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy.
In this jurisdiction, our Rules of Court clearly provide
that with respect to actions in personam, as
distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment
merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness
of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof
of the contrary.

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Kirby Hipolito

Garcia-Recio vs. Recio

: Panganiban
DATE: October 2, 2001
NATURE: divorce decree obtained abroad
FACTS:
March 1, 1987: Rederick Recio (Filipino) was marrie to Editha
Samson (Australian citizen)
May 18, 1989: obtained decree of divorce which dissolved their
marriage from an Australian family court
June 26, 1992: Recio became an Australian citizen
January 12, 1994: Recio was married to Grace Garcia; Recio
declared himself single and Filipino
October 22, 1995: Recio and Garcia started living separately
without prior dissolution of their marriage; while in Australia
their conjugal assets were divided in accordance with their
Statutory Declarations secured in Australia
March 3, 1998: Garcia filed a Complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy, since Recio had a
prior subsisting marriage when he married her.
Recio: his marriage had been dissolved and was thus legally
capacitated to marry Garcia
July 7, 1998: Recio was able to secure a divorce decree from a
family court in Sydney, Australia; prayed that the Complaint be
dismissed on the ground that it stated no cause of action, and
the RTC declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that
the divorce obtained in Australia is recognized in the
Philippines.

ISSUES:
Whether the divorce between Recio and Samson was proven and
whether Recio was proven to be legally capacitated to marry Garcia
HELD/DECISION:
No and no. Remanded to the lower court to receive evidence
RATIO:
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in
our jurisdiction, provided such decree s valid according to the
national law of the foreigner. However, the divorce decree and
the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained
the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial

notice of foreign laws and judgments; hence, like any other

facts, both the divorce decree and the national law of the
alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on
evidence.
In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner,
Art 26 of the FC allows the former to contract a subsequent
marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by
the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. A
divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens,
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is
consistent with their respective national laws.
Presentation of the divorce decree is insufficient. The
party pleading must prove the divorce as a fact and
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.
ART. 11 FC: where a marriage license is required, each of
the contracting parties shall file separately a sworn
application for such license with the proper local civil
registrar which shall specify the following: (5) if previously
married, how, when and where the previous marriage was
dissolved or annulled;
ART. 13 FC: in case either of the contracting parties has
been previously married, the applicant shall be required to
furnish, instead of the birth or baptismal certificate
required in the last preceding article, the death certificate
of the deceased spouse or the judicial decree of absolute
divorce, or the judicial decree of annulment or declaration
of nullity of his or her previous marriage.
ART. 52 FC: the judgment of annulment or of absolute
nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the
properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the childrens
presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate
civil registry and registries of property; otherwise the same
shall not affect their persons
Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary
value, the document must first be presented and admitted
in evidence. A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the
divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a
judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be
a written act or record of an act of an official body or
tribunal of a foreign country.
SEC. 24 and 25 of Rule 132: a document may be proven as
a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1)
an official publication, or (2) a copy thereof attested by the

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is
not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied
by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular
officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and (b) authenticated by
the seal of his office.
2 types of divorce: absolute (terminates marriage) and limited
divorce (suspends it and leaves the bond in full force)
Recio presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree: a
conditional or provisional judgment of divorce.
A party to a marriage who married again before this decree
becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits
the offence of bigamy.- divorce obtained has been restricted
and does not establish legal capacity to marry

Kirby Hipolito
RP vs. Obrecido
PONENTE: Quisumbing
DATE: October 5, 2005
NATURE: decree of divorce obtained abroad
FACTS:
May 24, 1981: Cipriano Orbecido III was married to Lady
Myros M. Villanueva
1986: Lady left for the US together with their son Kristoffer
and had been naturalized as an American citizen
2000: Cipriano learned from Kristoffer thatLady had
obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Innocent
Stanley.
Cipriano filed a petition for authority to remarry invoking
Par. 2 of Art. 26 of the FC, and the court granted it
SolGen raises a pure question of law
ISSUES:
Given a valid marriage between 2 Filipino citizen, where 1 party is
later naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce
decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse
likewise remarry under Philippine law?
HELD/DECISION:
It depends. Petition of SolGen granted
RATIO:
Legislative Intent: avoid absurd situation where the
Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who,
after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the
Filipino spouse
Par. 2 of Art. 26 should be interpreted to include cases
involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the
marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them
becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a
divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be
allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at
the time of the solemnization of the marriage A statute
may therefore be extended to cases not within the literal
meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit
or intent

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

(1) There is a valid marriage that had been celebrated between
a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and (2) a valid divorce is
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the
parties at the time of the celebration of marriage, but their
citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
Must prove that his wife is a naturalized American citizen, has
obtained a valid divorce, and is capacitated to remarry before
he remarries

Kirby Hipolito
San Luis vs. San Luis
PONENTE: Ynares- Santiago
DATE: February 6, 2007
NATURE: divorce obtained abroad; settlement of property of the
deceased
FACTS:
March 17, 1942: Felicisimo San Luis married Virginal Sulit
where 6 kids were born (Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda,
Emilita and Manuel)
August 1,, 1963L Virgina died
May 1, 1968: Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin where 1
kid was born (Tobias)
October 15, 1971: Merry Lee, an American citizen filed a
Complaint for Divorce and was granted together with the
custody of their child.
June 20, 1974: Felicisimo married Felicidad
Sagalongos/San Luis (no kids)
December 18, 1992: Felicisimo died
Felicidad sought the dissolution of their conjugal
partnership assets and settlement of Felicisimos estate;
she filed a petition for letters of administration of
December 17, 1993; heirs: Felicidad, 6 kids from 1st
marriage and 1 kid from 2nd marriage
February 4, 1994: Rodolfo San Luis filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of improper venue and failure to
state a cause of action; Felicidad has no personality to file
petition since she was a mistress; joined by Linda in his
motion, also by Edgar
Felicidad: although Felicisimo exercised his powers in
Laguna as former governor, he regularly went home to
ALabang, decree of absolute divorce, Felicisimo
capacitated to marry Felicidad
Kids: FC cannot be given retroactive effect because it
would impair vested rights in derogation of Art. 256 of FC
RTC: should have filed in Laguna; her marriage was
bigamous; FC cannot be retroactively applied
CA: reversed and set aside decision of the RTC
ISSUES:
Whether or not the marriage of Felicisimo with Merry Lee was
dissolved and he was capacitated to marry Felicidad

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Kirby Hipolito
Valdes vs. RTC

HELD/DECISION:
It depends. Remanded to lower court to accept evidence
RATIO:
Residence: actual residence; Domicile: legal residence
Election: residence is same as domicile; Venue for filing:
residence or actual habitation
Felicisimo resident of Alabang (home or city address in calling
cards, memberships, bills); Laguna provincial/office address
No need to retroactively apply FC; Van Dorn vs. Romillo is
sufficient as jurisprudential basis which recognized the validity
of divorce obtained abroad
Garcia vs. Recio: presentation solely of divorce decree is
insufficient and that the proof of its authenticity and due
execution must be presented.
Even if not the surviving spouse but is the co-owner of
Felicisimo-Art. 148 of FC: the regime of limited co-ownership
of property governing the union of parties who are not legally
capacitated to marry each other, but who nonetheless live
together as husband and wife, applies to properties acquired
during said cohabitation in proportion to their respective
contributions. Co-ownership will only be up to the extent of
the proven actual contribution of money, property or industry.
Absent proof of the extent thereof, their contributions
corresponding shares shall be presumed to be equal.

PONENTE: Vitug
DATE: July 31, 1996
NATURE: conjugal property still dissolved equally
FACTS:
January 5, 1971: Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were
married; they had 5 children
June 22, 1992: Valdes sought the declaration of nullity of
their marriage based on psych incapacity; and the court
granted the petition
o Marriage null and void ab initio
o Carlos Enrique III, Antonio Quintin, Angela
Rosario choose parent
o Stella Eloisa and Joaquin Pedro-mother, father
with visitation rights
o Directed to start proceedings on the liquidation of
their common properties as defined by Art. 147 of
the FC and to comply with the provisions of Art.
50, 51 and 52 of the same code within 30 days of
decision
Gomez sought the clarification of portion declaring the
compliance with Art. 50-52
Court: Gomez and Valdes will own their family home and
all their other properties for that matter in equal shares;
property regime of the parties shall be governed by the
rules on co-ownership
ISSUES:
Whether or not Art. 147 of the Family Code should apply
HELD/DECISION:
Yes.
RATIO:
In a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the
property relations of the parties during the period of
cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Art. 147 or
Art. 148, such as the case may be, of the Family Code.
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

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

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 the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they
lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint
efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares.
For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the
acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have
contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts
consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the
household.
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.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the
share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in
favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any
or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share
shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of
descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases,
the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.
(144a)
Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses
through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules
on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the
union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through
their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the
acquisition of the property shall still be considered as having
contributed thereto jointly of said partys efforts consisted in
the care and maintenance of the family household unlike the
conjugal partnership of gains, the fruits of the couples
separate property are not included in the co-ownership.

Kirby Hipolito