#17 MARRIAGE

G.R. No. 122749 July 31, 1996

ANTONIO A. S. VALDEZ, petitioner,

vs.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 102, QUEZON CITY, and
CONSUELO M. GOMEZ-VALDEZ, respondents.

FACTS:

Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married on 05 January 1971.

Begotten during the marriage were five children. In a petition, Valdez sought
the declaration of nullity of the marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family
code. The Trial court declared the marriage null and void on the ground of their
mutual psychological incapacity to comply with their essential marital
obligations.Consuelo Gomez sought a clarification of that portion of the
decision directing compliance with Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the Family Code.
She asserted that the Family Code contained no provisions on the procedure
for the liquidation of common property in "unions without marriage."
Parenthetically, during the hearing of the motion, the children filed a joint
affidavit expressing their desire to remain with their father, Antonio Valdez,
herein petitioner. 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 Article 147 or Article 148, such as the case may be, of the
Family Code.

ISSUE:

Whether or not co-ownership applies in a void marriage

RULING:

YES. 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. 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 in 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 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 innocent
party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon the termination of the
cohabitation.

1-2 LEGAL SEPARATION

G.R. No. 164817, 3 July 2009

Digna A. Najera, Petitioner

v.
Eduardo A. Najera, Respondent

FACTS:

Petitioner filed with the RTC a verified Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage with Alternative Prayer for Legal separation, with Appliction for
Designation as Administrator Pendente Lite of the Conjugal Partnership of
Gains. Petitioner alleged that she and respondent are residents of Bugallon,
Pangasinan, but respondent is presently living in the (United States of
America). They were married but are childless.

Petitioner claimed that at the time of the celebration of marriage, respondent

was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of the marriage, and such incapacity became manifest only after
marriage; (1) that respondent was jobless and was not exerting effort to find a
job at the time of marriage; only with the help of petitioner’s elder brother, who
was a seaman, was respondent able to land a job as a seaman; (2) that while
employed as a seaman, respondent did not give petitioner sufficient financial
support; (3) that respondent would quarrel with petitioner and falsely accuse
her of having an affair with another man whenever he came home, and took to
smoking marijuana and drinking; (4) that on July 1, 1994, while he was
quarreling with petitioner, without provocation, he inflicted physical violence
upon her and attempted to kill her with a bolo; and (6) after the said incident
respondent left the family home, taking along all their personal belongings, and
abandoned the petitioner. Petitioner reported the incident at the police station
of Bugallon, Pangasinan.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the totality of petitioner’s evidence was able to prove that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code.
RULING:

No. The evidence presented by petitioner in regard to the physical violence or

grossly abusive conduct toward petitioner and respondent’s abandonment of
petitioner justifiable cause for more than one year are grounds for legal
separation only and not for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code. The root cause of respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity
was not sufficiently proven by experts or shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable.

G. R. No. 169900 March 18, 2010

MARIO SIOCHI, Petitioner,

vs.
ALFREDO GOZON,et al. Respondent
FACTS:

Elvira Gozon filed a case of LEGAL SEPARATION against her husband

Alfredo. Later, she filed a notice of lis pendens (a public notice informing the
community that a particular property is subject to litigation and that will
prospective purchasers of the property will be bound by any judgment affecting
it) over a 30, 000 sq.meters lot in Malaiizbon registered in the name of “Afredo
Gozon married to Elvira Gozon”. While the LSEP case was pending, Alfredo
entered into an agreement to sell said lot to Mario Siochi for 18M. Mario gave a
DP of 5M with an agreement that Alfredo as the exclusive owner of the
property, will secure the exclusion of the property in the LSEP case and secure
the removal of notice of lis pendens. After giving the down payment, Mario
took possession of the property.

Later, the LSEP case was granted, the CPG (Conjugal Partnership of Gains)
was declared dissolved and liquidated; the land declared conjugal. Alfredo
being the offending spouse, the net profit of his share shall be forfeited in favor
of their daughter, Winifred. Alfredo later donated the land to Winifred. Through
SPA, Alfredo sold the land to Inter-Dimensional Realty for 18M wherein the
latter obtained the TCT in their name free from annotation of the notice of lis
pendens. Mario Siochi then filed a case for specific performance, damages
and the annulment of the donation and sale.

The CA decided that sale between Mario and Alfredo is void. Share of Alfredo
(offending spouse) was forfeited in favor of his daughter Winifred. Alfredo must
pay the 5m DP to Mario with damages. Winifred has the option of either to
dispose of the land or not.

ISSUE:
Wether or not Alfredo’s (offending spouse) entire share of said conjugal
property shall be deemed forfeited as effect of the LSEP case.

HELD:

No. As provided under Art 63 (2) of Family Code— “The decree of legal
separation shall have the ff effects:

(2) the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and
liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the NET
PROFITS earned by the absolute community or the conjugal partnership,
which shall be forfeited in favor of common children , or if there are none, to
the children of the guilty spouse in previous marriage, if there are none, to the
innocent spouse.

Pursuant to this Article, Alfredo’s share of the conjugal property is not entirely
forfeited in favor of their common child, but only his share of the net profits
earned from said conjugal property.
 PROVISIONAL ORDERS

GR. 150644, AUGUST 28, 2006

EDRWARD V. LACSON, Petitioner

v.

MAOWEE DABAN LACSON and MAONAA DABAN LACSON, represented

by their mother and gusrdian ad-litem, LEA DABAN LACSON,
Respondents

FACTS:

Edward Lacson and Lea Daban Lacson are the paremts of Maowee Daban
Lacson and Maonaa Daban Lacson. For unknown reason, Edward left their
conjugal home thereby leaving Leah to fend for their children. For a period of
18 years, Leah and her children from one place to another on their own.
Records reveal that in a note dated December 10, 1975, Edward promised to
give support his daughters however, aside from occasional giving of some
amount, Edward failed to fulfull his promise. In 1995, Lea instituted an action
for support in behalf of her daughter before the RTC of Iloilo City demanding
the amount of the support her daughters should have recieved. The RTC ruled
in favor of the Plaintiffs and ordered Edward to pay them the amount
equivalent to 216 months worth of support in arrears. The CA affirmed the
decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the mother of the petitioner failed to make a demand for
support as required by law.

RULING:
 No. The requisite demand for support appears to have been made
sometime in 1975. It may be that Lea made no extrajudicial demand in the
sense of a formal written demand in terms and the imperious tenor commonly
used byb legal advocates in a demand letter. Nonetheless, what would pass
as a demand was, however, defiitely made. Asking one to comply with his
obligation to support owing to the urgency of the situation is no less a demand
because it came by way of a request or a plea.