224 QUIAO vs.

QUIAO

TOPIC: Conjugal partnership of gains

FACTS:

 Rita filed a complaint against Brigido for legal

separation for cohabiting with another woman.
RTC: declared the legal separation of the parties
pursuant to Article 55. Save for one child
(already of legal age), the three minor children
remains in the custody of Rita, who is the
innocent spouse. The properties accrued by the
spouses shall be divided equally between them
subject to the respective legitimes of their
children; however, Brigido’s share of the net
profits earned by the conjugal partnership shall
be forfeited in favor of their children in
accordance to par. 9 of Article 129 of the FC.
 After more than 9 months later, Brigido filed a
motion for clarification asking the RTC to define
“Nets Profits Earned.” In answer, the court held
that the phrase denotes “the remainder of the
properties of the parties after deducting the
separate properties of each of the spouses and
debts.”

ISSUE: Whether the forfeiture of the petitioner’s net

profit share in favor of his children is valid?

HELD: YES

It was already established by the trial court that the

spouses have no separate properties, there is nothing
to return to any of them. The listed properties above
are considered part of the conjugal partnership. Thus,
ordinarily, what remains in the above-listed properties
should be divided equally between the spouses and/or
their respective heirs. However, since the trial court
found the petitioner the guilty party, his share from the
net profits of the conjugal partnership is forfeited in
favor of the common children, pursuant to Article 63(2)
of the Family Code. Again, lest we be confused, like in
the absolute community regime, nothing will be
returned to the guilty party in the conjugal partnership
regime, because there is no separate property which
may be accounted for in the guilty party's favor.