Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

1 Valdes vs. RTC G.R. No.

132529 February 2 2001

260 SCRA 221 [Article 147 Family Code-Property Regime of

Union Without Marriage; Article 148 - Rules on
Co-ownership regarding polygamous/bigamous
FACTS: marriages, adulterous or concubinage
relationships; Article 40 - Judicial Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage]
Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were
married in 1971 and begotten 5 children.
Valdez filed a petition in 1992 for a declaration
of nullity of their marriage pursuant to Article
36 of the Family Code, which was granted hence,
marriage is null and void on the ground of their SPO4 Santiago Cario married Susan Nicdao in
mutual psychological incapacity. Stella and 1969 without marriage license. They had two
Joaquin are placed under the custody of their children. He then married Susan Yee on
mother while the other 3 siblings are free to November 10 1992, with whom he had no
choose which they prefer. children in their almost 10 year cohabitation
starting way back in 1982.

Gomez sought a clarification of that portion in

the decision regarding the procedure for the He passed away on November 23 1992. The two
liquidation of common property in unions Susans filed with the RTC of Quezon City the
without marriage. During the hearing on the claims for monetary benefits and financial
motion, the children filed a joint affidavit assistance pertaining to the deceased from
expressing desire to stay with their father. various government agencies. Nicdao collected
a total of P146,000 while Yee received a total of
ISSUE: Whether or not the property regime
should be based on co-ownership.
Yee filed an instant case for collection of half
the money acquired by Nicdao, collectively
HELD: denominated as "death benefits." Yee
admitted that her marriage with the SPO4 took
place during the subsistence of, and without
first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity,
The Supreme Court ruled that in a void marriage,
the marriage between Nicdao and the SPO4.
regardless of the cause thereof, the property
She however claimed that she became aware of
relations of the parties are governed by the
the previous marriage at the funeral of the
rules on 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 be considered In 1995, the trial court ruled in favor of Yee.
as having contributed thereto jointly if said Nicdao appealed to the CA, which the CA
partys efforts consisted in the care and affirmed the decision of the trial court.
maintenance of the family.

2 carino v carino
Whether or not Yee can claim half the amount second marriage would be void. However, for
acquired by Nicdao. purposes other than to remarry, no prior and
separate judicial declaration of nullity is

No. SC held that the marriage between Yee and

3 Metrobank v Pascual
Cario falls under the Article 148 of the Family
Code, which refers to the property regime of
bigamous or polygamous marriages, adulterous
CASE DIGEST: Metrobank v. Pascual
or concubinage relationships.

Florencia Nevalga and Nicholson Pascual were

Yee cannot claim the benefits earned by the
married in 1985. During the union, they
SPO4 as a police officer as her marriage to the
acquired a lot with a three door apartment
deceased is void due to bigamy. She is only
standing thereon. Their marriage were annulled
entitled to the properties acquired with the
in 1994 and they went on their separate ways
deceased through their actual joint contribution.
without liquidating their properties.
Wages and salaries earned by each party belong
to him or her exclusively. Hence, they are not
owned in common by Yee and the deceased,
but belong to the deceased alone and Yee has In 1997, Florencia mortgaged the aforesaid
no right whatsoever to claim the same. By property as a security for the loan she obtained
intestate succession, the said death benefits with spouses Oliveros. Petitioner foreclosed the
of the deceased shall pass to his legal heirs. mortgage, had the property auctioned and
And, Yee, not being the legal wife, is not one of acquired it as the successful bidder. Nicholson
them. filed an action to annul the mortgage alleging
that the subject property is still a conjugal
property and it was executed without his
As regards to the first marriage, the marriage
between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due
to absence of a valid marriage license. Nicdao
can claim the death benefits by the deceased RTC ruled that mortgage is invalid. The said lot
even if she did not contribute thereto. Article is a conjugal property, the same having been
147 creates a co-ownership in respect thereto, acquired during the existence of the marriage of
entitling Nicdao to share one-half of the Nicholson and Florencia. (Art 116 NCC)
benefits. As there is no allegation of bad faith in Metrobank had not overcome the presumptive
the first marriage, she can claim one-half of the conjugal nature of the lot. And being conjugal,
disputed death benefits and the other half to the RTC concluded that the disputed property
the deceased' to his legal heirs, by intestate may not be validly encumbered by Florencia
succession. without Nicholsons consent.CA affirmed the

The marriage between Yee and SPO4 is likewise

null and void for the same has been solemnized
without the judicial declaration of the nullity of
the marriage between Nicdao and SPO4. Under
Article 40, if a party who is previously married A. WON the subject property is a conjugal by
wishes to contract a second marriage, he or she applying Article 116 of the Family Code.
has to obtain first a judicial decree declaring the
first marriage void, before he or she could B. WON the declaration of nullity of marriage
contract said second marriage, otherwise the between the respondent Nicholson Pascual and
Florencia Nevalga ipso facto dissolved the
regime of community of property of the
5 Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank v. Dailo

FACTS: Miguela Dailo and Marcelino Dailo, Jr

were married on August 8, 1967. During their
A.) The property relations of the former spouses marriage the spouses purchased a house and lot
are governed by the Civil Code Art 106 (Being situated at San Pablo City from a certain Dalida.
contrated prior to effectivity of the Family Code) The subject property was declared for tax
which provides that all property of the marriage assessment purposes The Deed of Absolute Sale,
is presumed to be conjugal partnership, unless however, was executed only in favor of the late
it be proven that it pertains exclusively to the Marcelino Dailo, Jr. as vendee thereof to the
husband or to the wife. This article does not exclusion of his wife.
require proof that the property was acquired
with funds of the partnership. The presumption
applies even when the manner in which the Marcelino Dailo, Jr. executed a Special Power of
property was acquired does not appear. (Note: Attorney (SPA) in favor of one Gesmundo,
The petitioner failed to overcome the authorizing the latter to obtain a loan from
presumption in this case) petitioner Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank
to be secured by the spouses Dailos house and
lot in San Pablo City. Pursuant to the SPA,
B.) While the declared nullity of marriage severe Gesmundo obtained a loan from petitioner. As
marital bond and dissolved the conjugal security therefor, Gesmundo executed on the
partnership, the character of the properties same day a Real Estate Mortgage constituted on
acquired before such declaration continues to the subject property in favor of petitioner. The
subsist as conjugal properties until and after the abovementioned transactions, including the
liquidation and partition of the partnership. In execution of the SPA in favor of Gesmundo,
this pre-liquidation scenario, Art. 493 of the Civil took place without the knowledge and consent
Code shall govern the property relationship of respondent.[
between the former spouses. Thus, applying the
provision to the present case, the effect of the
alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the Upon maturity, the loan remained outstanding.
co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which As a result, petitioner instituted extrajudicial
may be allotted to him in the division upon the foreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged
termination of the co-ownership. Accordingly, property. After the extrajudicial sale thereof, a
the mortgage contract insofar as it covered the Certificate of Sale was issued in favor of
remaining 1/2 undivided portion of the lot is petitioner as the highest bidder. After the lapse
null and void, Nicholson not having consented of one year without the property being
to the mortgage of his undivided half. redeemed, petitioner consolidated the
ownership thereof by executing an Affidavit of
Consolidation of Ownership and a Deed of
(In the trial, it was found that the alleged waiver Absolute Sale.
presented by Florencia bore Nicholson's forged
In the meantime, Marcelino Dailo, Jr. died. In
one of her visits to the subject property,
4 Ravina v. Villa Miguela learned that petitioner had already
employed a certain Brion to clean its premises
and that her car, a Ford sedan, was razed
Meron sa scribd because Brion allowed a boy to play with fire
within the premises.
HELD: the petition is denied.

Claiming that she had no knowledge of the

mortgage constituted on the subject property,
which was conjugal in nature, respondent
instituted with the RTC San Pablo City a Civil 1. NO. Article 124 of the Family Code provides in
Case for Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage and part:
Certificate of Sale, Affidavit of Consolidation of
Ownership, Deed of Sale, Reconveyance with
Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Damages
ART. 124. The administration and enjoyment of
against petitioner. In the latters Answer with
the conjugal partnership property shall belong
Counterclaim, petitioner prayed for the
to both spouses jointly. . . .
dismissal of the complaint on the ground that
the property in question was the exclusive
property of the late Marcelino Dailo, Jr.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or
otherwise unable to participate in the
administration of the conjugal properties, the
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered
other spouse may assume sole powers of
a Decision declaring the said documents null
administration. These powers do not include
and void and further ordered the defendant is
the powers of disposition or encumbrance
ordered to reconvey the property subject of this
which must have the authority of the court or
complaint to the plaintiff, to pay the plaintiff
the written consent of the other spouse. In the
the sum representing the value of the car which
absence of such authority or consent, the
was burned, the attorneys fees, moral and
disposition or encumbrance shall be void. . . .
exemplary damages.

In applying Article 124 of the Family Code, this

The appellate court affirmed the trial courts
Court declared that the absence of the consent
Decision, but deleted the award for damages
of one renders the entire sale null and void,
and attorneys fees for lack of basis. Hence, this
including the portion of the conjugal property
pertaining to the husband who contracted the

Respondent and the late Marcelino. were

married on August 8, 1967. In the absence of a
ISSUE: marriage settlement, the system of relative
community or conjugal partnership of gains
governed the property relations between
1. WON THE MORTGAGE CONSTITUTED BY THE respondent and her late husband. With the
LATE MARCELINO DAILO, JR. ON THE SUBJECT effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988,
PROPERTY AS CO-OWNER THEREOF IS VALID AS Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains in
TO HIS UNDIVIDED SHARE. the Family Code was made applicable to
conjugal partnership of gains already
established before its effectivity unless vested
2. WON THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP IS LIABLE rights have already been acquired under the
FAMILY. The rules on co-ownership do not even apply to
the property relations of respondent and the
late Marcelino even in a suppletory manner.
The regime of conjugal partnership of gains is a
special type of partnership, where the husband
(1) Debts and obligations contracted by
and wife place in a common fund the proceeds,
either spouse without the consent of the other
products, fruits and income from their separate
to the extent that the family may have been
properties and those acquired by either or both
benefited; . . . .
spouses through their efforts or by chance.
Unlike the absolute community of property
wherein the rules on co-ownership apply in a
suppletory manner, the conjugal partnership Certainly, to make a conjugal partnership
shall be governed by the rules on contract of respond for a liability that should appertain to
partnership in all that is not in conflict with the husband alone is to defeat and frustrate the
what is expressly determined in the chapter (on avowed objective of the new Civil Code to show
conjugal partnership of gains) or by the spouses the utmost concern for the solidarity and
in their marriage settlements. Thus, the well-being of the family as a unit.[
property relations of respondent and her late
husband shall be governed, foremost, by
Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains of The burden of proof that the debt was
the Family Code and, suppletorily, by the rules contracted for the benefit of the conjugal
on partnership under the Civil Code. In case of partnership of gains lies with the creditor-party
conflict, the former prevails because the Civil litigant claiming as such. Ei incumbit probatio
Code provisions on partnership apply only when qui dicit, non qui negat (he who asserts, not he
the Family Code is silent on the matter. who denies, must prove). Petitioners sweeping
conclusion that the loan obtained by the late
Marcelino to finance the construction of
The basic and established fact is that during his housing units without a doubt redounded to the
lifetime, without the knowledge and consent of benefit of his family, without adducing
his wife, Marcelino constituted a real estate adequate proof, does not persuade this Court.
mortgage on the subject property, which Consequently, the conjugal partnership cannot
formed part of their conjugal partnership. By be held liable for the payment of the principal
express provision of Article 124 of the Family obligation.
Code, in the absence of (court) authority or
written consent of the other spouse, any
disposition or encumbrance of the conjugal NOTES:
property shall be void.

In addition, a perusal of the records of the case

The aforequoted provision does not qualify with reveals that during the trial, petitioner
respect to the share of the spouse who makes vigorously asserted that the subject property
the disposition or encumbrance in the same was the exclusive property of the late Marcelino
manner that the rule on co-ownership under Dailo, Jr. Nowhere in the answer filed with the
Article 493 of the Civil Code does. Where the trial court was it alleged that the proceeds of
law does not distinguish, courts should not the loan redounded to the benefit of the family.
distinguish. Thus, both the trial court and the Even on appeal, petitioner never claimed that
appellate court are correct in declaring the the family benefited from the proceeds of the
nullity of the real estate mortgage on the loan. When a party adopts a certain theory in
subject property for lack of respondents the court below, he will not be permitted to
consent. change his theory on appeal, for to permit him
to do so would not only be unfair to the other
party but it would also be offensive to the basic
2. NO. Under Article 121 of the Family Code, rules of fair play, justice and due process. A
[T]he conjugal partnership shall be liable party may change his legal theory on appeal
for: . . . only when the factual bases thereof would not
require presentation of any further evidence by sale. Even if the other spouse actively
the adverse party in order to enable it to participated in negotiating for the sale of the
properly meet the issue raised in the new property, that other spouses written consent to
theory. the sale is still required by law for its validity.
The Agreement entered into by Alfredo and
Mario was without the written consent of Elvira.
Thus, the Agreement is entirely void. As regards
Marios contention that the Agreement is a
6 Siochi v. Gozon continuing offer which may be perfected by
Elviras acceptance before the offer is
withdrawn, the fact that the property was
Marital Consent, Essential to Sale of Conjugal subsequently donated by Alfredo to Winifred
Property Even If Separated De Facto (Siochi v. and then sold to IDRI clearly indicates that the
Gozon Case Digest) offer was already withdrawn.

G.R. No. 169900 March 18, 2010



et al., Respondents.
It was ruled by the CA that the one-half
undivided share of Alfredo in the property was
already forfeited in favor of their daughter
G.R. No. 169977 based on the ruling of the RTC that the
offending spouse in an action for legal
separation is deprived of his share in the net
INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC., Petitioner, profits of the conjugal properties.
The Supreme Court found the ruling of the CA
to be in error.

Under Article 63 of the Family Code, the

FIRST ISSUE: absolute community or the conjugal partnership
shall be dissolved and liquidated but the
offending spouse shall have no right to any
In this case, the Supreme Court of the share of the net profits earned by the absolute
Philippines once again had the occasion to community or the conjugal partnership, which
mention that sale of the property forming part shall be forfeited in accordance with the
of the conjugal partnership without the consent provisions of article 43(2).
of the other spouse is void. This is true even if
Article 43 of the Family Code likewise provides
the spouses were separated in fact and Alfredo
that, the termination of the subsequent
was the sole administrator of the property at
marriage referred to in the preceding Article
the time of sale.
shall produce the following:

The sale is void absent such consent or
(2) the absolute community of property or the
authority. The absence of the consent of one of
conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall
the spouse renders the entire sale void,
be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse
including the portion of the conjugal property
contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her
pertaining to the spouse who contracted the
share of the net profits of the community
property or conjugal partnership property shall Edna was not able to pay the loan despite
be forfeited in favor of the common children or, repeated demands from Flores. Flores then filed
if there are none, the children of the guilty an action to foreclose the mortgage.
spouse by a previous marriage or, in default of
children, the innocent spouse.
The trial court (RTC Manila, Branch 33) ruled
Therefore, among the effects of the decree of
that the action for foreclosure cannot prosper
legal separation is that the conjugal partnership
because it appears that there was no valid
is dissolved and liquidated and the offending
mortgage between Edna and Flores. Edna
spouse would have no right to any share of the
mortgaged the property without the consent of
net profits earned by the conjugal partnership.
her husband and the special power of attorney
It is only the share in the net profits which is
executed by Enrico a month after the execution
forfeited in favor of their daughter. Article
of the deed did not cure the defect. The trial
102(4) of the Family Code provides that [f]or
court however ruled that Flores can instead file
purposes of computing the net profits subject to
a personal action (collection suit) against Edna.
forfeiture in accordance with Article 43, No. (2)
and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall be the
increase in value between the market value of
the community property at the time of the Eventually, Flores filed a suit for collection of
celebration of the marriage and the market sum of money against Edna and Enrico (raffled
value at the time of its dissolution. Clearly, to RTC Manila, Branch 42). The Lindo spouses
what is forfeited in favor of their daughter is not filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res
his share in the conjugal partnership property judicata. The trial court denied the motion. The
but merely in the net profits of the conjugal spouses then filed a petition for certiorari with
partnership property. the Court of Appeals.

7 Flores v. Lindo The CA ruled in favor of the spouses. It ruled

that when Flores filed an action for the
foreclosure of the mortgage, he had abandoned
the remedy of filing a personal action to collect
648 SCRA 772 Civil Law Family Code
the indebtedness. These remedies are mutually
Ownership, Administration, Enjoyment, and
Disposition of Conjugal Property

Mortgage of Real Property Mutually Exclusive

Remedies ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is

In October 1995, Edna Lindo obtained a loan

amounting to P400k from Arturo Flores. To HELD: No. It is true that as a rule, a
secure the loan, Edna executed a deed of real mortgagee-creditor has a single cause of action
estate mortgage on a property which is against a mortgagor-debtor, that is, to recover
however part of the conjugal property (it was the debt; and that he has the option of either
both in her name and her husbands name filing a personal action for collection of sum of
Enrico Lindo). Only Edna signed the deed. But in money or instituting a real action to foreclose
November 1995, Enrico executed a special on the mortgage security. These remedies are
power of attorney authorizing Edna to indeed mutually exclusive. However, in this case,
mortgage the property. the Supreme Court made a pro hac vice decision
(applicable only to this case and as an exception
to the rule) which allows Flores to recover via a
personal action despite his prior filing of a real
action to recover the indebtedness. This
procedural rule cannot be outweighed by the Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the
rule on unjust enrichment. Here, Edna admitted marriage on the ground that Wilson Marcos has
her liability of indebtedness. psychological incapacity. The RTC declared the
marriage null and void under Article 36 which
was however reversed by the Court of Appeals
Further, the ruling of the Manila RTC Branch 33
is erroneous when it ruled that the mortgage
between Edna and Flores is invalid. It is true ISSUES: 1. Whether personal medical or
that a disposition (or in this case a mortgage, psychological examination of the respondent by
which is an act of strict dominion) of a conjugal a physician is a requirement for a declaration of
property by one spouse without the consent of psychological incapacity.
the other spouse is VOID. However, under the
2. Whether or not the totality of evidence
second paragraph of Article 124 of the Family
presented in this case show psychological

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or

HELD: Psychological incapacity, as a ground for
otherwise unable to participate in the
declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be
administration of the conjugal properties, the
established by the totality of evidencepresented.
other spouse may assume sole powers of
There is no requirement, however that the
administration. These powers do not include
respondent should be examined by a physician
disposition or encumbrance without authority
or a psychologist as a conditionsince qua non
of the court or the written consent of the other
for such declaration.Although this Court is
spouse. In the absence of such authority or
sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to
consent the disposition or encumbrance shall be
provide material support to the family and may
void. However, the transaction shall be
haveresorted to physical abuse and
construed as a continuing offer on the part of
abandonment, the totality of his acts does not
the consenting spouse and the third person, and
lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity
may be perfected as a binding contract upon
on hispart. There is absolutely no showing that
the acceptance by the other spouse or
his defects were already present at the
authorization by the court before the offer is
inception of the marriage or that they
withdrawn by either or both offerors. (Emphasis
areincurable.Verily, the behavior of respondent
can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his
job and was not gainfully employed for aperiod
of more than six years. It was during this period
Thus it is clear, the mortgage was void at the
that he became intermittently drunk, failed to
outset but it was ratified when a month later,
give material and moral support,and even left
Enrico executed a special power of attorney
the family home.Thus, his alleged psychological
authorizing Edna to mortgage the subject
illness was traced only to said period and not to
property. (So I guess this is an exception to the
the inception of the marriage. Equallyimportant,
rule that no void act can be ratified.
there is no evidence showing that his condition
is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully
employed as a taxi driver.In sum, this Court
8 Marcos v. Marcos cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage
for failure of petitioner to show that the alleged
psychologicalincapacity is characterized by
FACTS: Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability;
Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. and for her failure to observe the guidelines
Alleging that the husband failed to provide outlined inMolina.
material support to the family and have
resorted to physical abuse and abandonment,
9 Dedel v. CA separation under Article 55 of the Family Code.
These provisions, however, do not necessarily
preclude the possibility of these various
Art 46 compared with PI circumstances being themselves, depending on
the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia
of psychological incapacity. Sexual infidelity is
not one of those contemplated in law. Until
In 1966, David and Sharon married each other.
further statutory or jurisprudential parameters
Theyve had four children since then. David then
are set or established, SI cannot be appreciated
found out that Sharon is irresponsible as a wife
in favor of the dissolution of marriage.
and as a mother because during the marriage
Sharon had extra-marital affairs with various
other guys particularly with one Mustafa
Ibrahim, a Jordanian, with whom she had 2 10 Buenaventura v. CA
children. She even married Ibrahim. David
averred that Sharon is psychologically
incapacitated and David submitted the findings Meron sa scribd
of Dr. Dayan which shows that Sharon is indeed
psychologically incapacitated. Dr. Dayan
declared that Sharon was suffering from 11 Yu v. Yu
Anti-Social Personality Disorder exhibited by her
blatant display of infidelity; that she committed
several indiscretions and had no capacity for
Eric Jonathan Yu filed a petition for declaration
remorse, even bringing with her the two
of nullity of marriage and dissolution of the
children of Mustafa Ibrahim to live with
absolute community of property before the
petitioner. Such immaturity and
Pasig Regional Trial Court. The petition contains
irresponsibility in handling the marriage like her
a prayer for the award of sole custody of his
repeated acts of infidelity and abandonment of
daughter Bianca, subject to the final resolution
her family are indications of Anti-Social
by the Court of Appeals (CA) on his Petition for
Personality Disorder amounting to psychological
Writ of Habeas Corpus.
incapacity to perform the essential obligations
of marriage.

The CA dismissed the petition for

writ of habeas corpus for becoming moot and
ISSUE: Whether or not PI has been proven.
academic. Caroline Tanchay-Yu, on the other
hand, filed before the RTC Pasay a petition for
habeas corpus, with a prayer for the award of
HELD: PI is not proven in court in this case. The the sole custody to her of Bianca.
evidence is not sufficient. PI is intended to the
most serious cases of personality disorders
which make one be incapable of performing the
Both the Pasig RTC and the
essential marital obligations. Sharons sexual
Pasay RTC asserted their jurisdiction over the
infidelity does not constitute PI nor does it
constitute the other forms of psychoses which if
existing at the inception of marriage, like the
state of a party being of unsound mind or
concealment of drug addiction, habitual ISSUE:
alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism,
merely renders the marriage contract voidable
pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug Whether or not the question of custody over
addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or Bianca should be litigated before the RTC Pasay
homosexuality should occur only during the or before the RTC Pasig
marriage, they become mere grounds for legal
provide, the custody issue in a declaration of
nullity case is deemed pleaded.

Since this immediately-quoted provision directs

Judgment on the issue of custody in the nullity
the court taking jurisdiction over a petition for
of marriage case before the Pasig RTC,
declaration of nullity of marriage to resolve the
regardless of which party would prevail, would
custody of common children, by mere motion of
constitute res judicata on the habeas corpus
either party, it could only mean that the filing of
case before the Pasay RTC since the former has
a new action is not necessary for the court to
jurisdiction over the parties and the subject
consider the issue of custody of a minor.

The only explicit exception to the earlier-quoted

There is identity in the causes of action in Pasig
second paragraph of Art. 50 of the Family Code
and Pasay because there is identity in the facts
is when such matters had been adjudicated in
and evidence essential to the resolution of the
previous judicial proceedings, which is not the
identical issue raised in both actions whether
case here.
it would serve the best interest of Bianca to be
in the custody of Eric rather than Caroline or
vice versa.
The elements of litis pendentia having been
established, the more appropriate action
criterion guides this Court in deciding which of
Since the ground invoked in the petition for
the two pending actions to abate.
declaration of nullity of marriage before the
Pasig RTC is Carolines alleged psychological
incapacity to perform her essential marital
The petition filed by Eric for the declaration of
obligations as provided in Article 36 of the
nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC is the
Family Code, the evidence to support this cause
more appropriate action to determine the issue
of action necessarily involves evidence of
of who between the parties should have
Carolines fitness to take custody of Bianca.
custody over Bianca in view of the express
Thus, the elements of litis pendentia, to wit: a)
provision of the second paragraph of Article 50
identity of parties, or at least such as
of the Family Code. This must be so in line with
representing the same interest in both actions;
the policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits.
b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts;
and c) the identity in the two cases should be
such that the judgment that may be rendered in 12 Navarro v. Navarro (actual case)
the pending case would, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
other, are present. NARCISO S. NAVARRO, JR., Petitioner,


By Erics filing of the case for declaration of CYNTHIA CECILIO-NAVARRO, Respondent.

nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC he
automatically submitted the issue of the
custody of Bianca as an incident thereof. After DECISION
the appellate court subsequently dismissed the
habeas corpus case, there was no need for Eric
to replead his prayer for custody for, as
above-quoted provisions of the Family Code
For review is the Decision1 dated January 8, concluded from meetings with the petitioner
2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. that the marriage was dysfunctional, destructive,
65677, reversing the Regional Trial Courts and reconciliation was out of the question since
declaration of nullity of the marriage of he claims he would go insane if he were to go
petitioner and respondent. Likewise assailed is back to his wife. Relying on the view of another
the Court of Appeals Resolution dated February expert, one Dr. Gerardo Velasco, witness de
4, 2004 denying reconsideration. Castro opined that professionals are per se
incapacitated to perform the essential
obligations of marriage because they spend a
In Civil Case No. 94-70727, filed by petitioner lot of time in the pursuit of their profession and
Narciso Navarro, Jr. with the Regional Trial have very little time to spend with their family.
Court of Manila, Branch 37, he sought the She concluded that respondent was also
declaration of nullity of his marriage to psychologically incapacitated to perform the
respondent. marital obligations because she knew, from the
start, that her husband was going to be a doctor,
yet she did not give him the support and
understanding that was expected of a doctors
As culled from the records, the facts of the case
are as follows:

Lilia Tayco, the housemaid of petitioners

Petitioner and respondent were college
parents also testified that petitioner and
sweethearts. At the time they got married, both
respondent were always quarreling because
in civil and church ceremonies, they were
respondent was always jealous of petitioners
awaiting their first child. Since petitioner was
still a medical student, while respondent was a
student of pharmacy, they lived with
petitioners parents, on whom they were
financially dependent. Eventually, their union A psychologist, Dr. Natividad Dayan, who
bore four children. conducted a psychiatric test on petitioner,
testified that tests showed that petitioner was a
perfectionist, short-tempered, critical,
argumentative and irritable when people do not
Petitioner alleged that respondent constantly
meet his expectations. He married Cynthia only
complained that he didnt have time for her;
after he got her pregnant. He had depressions
and that she constantly quarreled with him
and tended to escapism when beset with
even before marriage when he could not give
problems. He was vocal about his marital
her the things she wanted. He added that she
problems. He believed that the lack of
was not supportive of his career. Even marriage
communication, absence of quality time,
counseling did not work. Petitioner stated that
inadequacy in problem-solving, and many
when they quarreled, she refused to have sex
problems caused the failure of the marriage.
with him and even told him to look for other
women. He filed the petition for nullification of
their marriage when he found out their eldest
daughter had been made pregnant by a man For her part, respondent refused to submit to
whom respondent hired to follow him. the psychiatric examination asked by the
petitioner, but said she would do so only when
her defense requires it. She averred that she
had no marital problems, not until petitioner
Abdona T. de Castro, a marriage counselor duly
had an illicit affair with a certain Dr. Lucila
accredited by the Department of Social Welfare
Posadas. Petitioner denied the affair.
and Development, testified that when
Respondent narrated that early 1984, she
petitioner saw her on April 6, 1994, he was
caught petitioner and Lucila inside the Harana
distraught, harassed, and unhappy. She
Motel in Sta. Mesa where a confrontation
ensued. After the incident, petitioner seldom 4. The parties children are hereby declared
went home until he permanently left his family legitimate, and the custody of the parties minor
sometime in 1986. Respondent claimed children is hereby awarded to the Defendant
petitioner and Lucila continued to see each with the Plaintiff exercising his right to visit
other and had gone abroad together several them at least once a week;
times. She explained that she uttered she would
not make love with her husband and dared him
to look for other women only out of frustration 5. The properties in the name of the parties
and anger upon discovery of the affair. She consisting of a house and lot located at 15
admitted hiring someone to spy on petitioner, Bronze Street, Filinvest, Quezon City are hereby
but added that she still loved her husband. deemed as their advance legitime to their

Cynthias friend since high school, Miraflor

Respicio testified that Cynthia was a good, SO ORDERED.2
stable, and mature person; that she was a loving
and caring mother who gave up her career to
take care of her children; and that petitioner
Respondent appealed the case to the Court of
and respondent were happy during the early
Appeals. She averred that the trial court erred
days of the marriage.
when it annulled their marriage instead of
decreeing their legal separation, with the ruling
that petitioner was the guilty spouse.
On August 21, 1998, the trial court held that
petitioner and respondent were both
psychologically incapacitated to perform their
In a Decision dated January 8, 2003, the Court
marital obligations. The dispositive portion of
of Appeals held that the constant arguments,
the courts decision reads:
bickerings and conflicts between the spouses
did not constitute psychological incapacity. It
ruled that petitioner failed to show that any
WHEREFORE, the marriage between the parties psychological incapacity in either of the two
is (sic) dated June 2, 1973 is hereby declared parties existed at the time of the celebration of
null and void with the following effects: marriage. The appellate court reversed the
decision of the trial court and declared that the
marriage still subsists.
1. The Plaintiff is hereby directed to support his
children with the Defendant in the amount of
forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) a month, Petitioner now comes before us raising the
which sum shall be payable on or before the 5th following as issues:
day of each month, effective September, 1998;

(1) Are the decision and resolution of the

2. The parties are hereby disqualified from Honorable Court of Appeals proper subject for
inheriting from each other by way of testate or review by the Honorable Court under Rule 45 of
intestate succession; the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?

3. Either of the parties may revoke the (2) Is the conclusion of the Honorable Court of
designation of the other as beneficiary in a life Appeals that the lower court (RTC) erred in
insurance policy; finding the parties (petitioner and respondent)
both psychologically incapacitated under Article
36 of The Family Code correct or not?
(not physical) incapacity that causes a party to
be truly incognitive of the basic marital
(3) Is the conclusion of the Honorable Court of
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed
Appeals that the evidence failed to show that
and discharged by the parties to the marriage.
the parties (petitioner and respondent) were
These include the obligations to live together,
completely unable to discharge the essential
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and
obligations of marriage correct or not? and
render mutual help and support.5

(4) Which is more in accord with existing law

We likewise have repeatedly reminded that the
and settled jurisprudence, the decision of the
intention of the law is to confine the meaning of
Court of Appeals or the decision of the trial
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious
cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the
Simply stated, the issue before us is whether marriage.6 In Republic v. Court of Appeals,7 the
the marriage is void on the ground of the Court gave the guidelines in the interpretation
parties psychological incapacity. and application of Art. 36 which are as follows:

Petitioner contends that the decision of the trial (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of
court was well-founded, based on the evidence the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
indicating that the marriage was beyond should be resolved in favor of the existence and
reconciliation, and allowing the marriage to continuation of the marriage and against its
subsist would only prolong the spouses agony. dissolution and nullity...
Respondent counters that petitioner failed to
prove psychological incapacity, and that their
psychological incapacities existed as early as the
(2) The root cause of the psychological
time of the celebration of their marriage.
incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
We shall now resolve the issue.1a\^/phi1.net explained in the decision...

Article 36 of the Family Code states: (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing
at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.

A marriage contracted by any party who, at the

time of the celebration, was psychologically (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be
incapacitated to comply with the essential medically or clinically permanent or incurable...
marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be
void even if such incapacity becomes manifest
only after its solemnization.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring
about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage...
In addition, as early as 1995, in Santos v. Court
of Appeals,4 we categorically said that
psychological incapacity required by Art. 36
(6) The essential marital obligations must be
must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
antecedence, and (c) incurability. Psychological
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as
incapacity should refer to no less than a mental
well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children. perform the essential obligations of marriage
Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must because their profession allows them little time
also be stated in the petition, proven by for family life is highly debatable.
evidence and included in the text of the
Lastly, petitioner failed to show that grave and
incurable incapacity, on the part of both
(7) Interpretations given by the National spouses, existed at the time of the celebration
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic of the marriage. Their bickerings and arguments
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling even before their marriage and respondents
or decisive, should be given great respect by our scandalous outbursts in public, at most, show
courts... their immaturity, and immaturity does not
constitute psychological incapacity.12 Thus so
far, both petitioner and respondent have not
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting shown proof of a natal or supervening disabling
attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to factor, an adverse integral element in their
appear as counsel for the state. No decision personality structure that effectively
shall be handed down unless the Solicitor incapacitates them from accepting and
General issues a certification, which will be complying with the obligations essential to
quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his marriage.13
reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the
case may be, to the petition...8
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of
merit. The Decision dated January 8, 2003 and
In the present case, the spouses frequent the Resolution dated February 4, 2004 of the
squabbles and respondents refusal to sleep Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 65677 are
with petitioner and be supportive to him do not hereby AFFIRMED.
constitute psychological incapacity. The records
show that petitioner and respondent were living
in harmony in the first few years of their No pronouncement as to costs.
marriage, which bore them four children.
Psychological incapacity must be more than just
a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the SO ORDERED
performance of some marital obligations,9 it is
essential that they must be shown to be
incapable of doing so, due to some
13 Bier v. Bier
psychological illness10 existing at the time of
the celebration of the marriage.

Parang meron din sa scribd

It will be noted that respondent did not undergo

psychological tests. Witness de Castros
diagnosis was based solely on petitioners 14 Sales v. Sales
avowals and not on personal knowledge of the
spouses relationship. Hence, de Castros
diagnosis is based on hearsay and has no meron sa scribd
probative value.11

15 Cabreza v. Cabreza
Further, de Castros statement that
professionals are per se incapacitated to
16 Camacho-Reyes v. Camacho summons, Maribel did not participate in the

Nabasa na natin ito dati

The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Noel.
The RTC found that Maribel failed to perform
17 Bacay v. Bacay the essential marital obligations of marriage,
and such failure was due to a personality
disorder called Narcissistic Personality Disorder
characterized by juridical antecedence, gravity
and incurability as determined by a clinical

The phrase psychological incapacity is not

meant to comprehend all possible cases of
On appeal by the OSG, the CA reversed the
decision of the RTC. The CA ruled that Maribels
Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not the
psychological incapacity contemplated by law.
FACTS: Her refusal to perform the essential marital
obligations may be attributed merely to her
stubborn refusal to do so. Also, the
Noel and Maribel were schoolmates turned manifestations of the Narcissistic Personality
sweethearts. Noel considered Maribel as the Disorder had no connection with Maribels
snobbish and hard-to-get type. Maribel was also failure to perform her marital obligations. Noel
snobbish around his family. Noel tried to break having failed to prove Maribels alleged
up with Maribel. However, Maribel refused. psychological incapacity. Finally, Maribels
Noel and Maribel still continued to see each misrepresentation that she was pregnant to
other only on a friendly basis. They failed to induce Noel to marry her was not the fraud
keep their meetings friendly as they had several contemplated under Art. 45(3) as it was not
romantic moments together. Noel took these among the instances enumerated under Art. 46.
episodes of sexual contact casually since
Maribel never demanded anything from him.
After a while, Maribel informed Noel that she Noel contends that the CA failed to consider
was pregnant. Noel grudgingly agreed to marry Maribels refusal to procreate as psychological
Maribel. Noel and Maribel agreed to live with incapacity. He argues that making love for
Noels family. Maribel remained aloof and did procreation and consummation of the marriage
not go out of her way to endear herself to them. for the start of family life is different from plain,
Maribel refused to contribute to the household simple and casual sex. He points out that
expenses. She also refused to have any sexual Maribels psychological incapacity was proven
contact with Noel. Despite Maribels claim of to be permanent and incurable with the root
being pregnant, Noel never observed any cause existing before the marriage. The
symptoms of pregnancy in her and this was psychologist testified that persons suffering
confirmed by Maribels officemates. One day, from Narcissistic Personality Disorder were
Maribel told Noel and his family that she had a unmotivated to participate in therapy session
miscarriage. Noel confronted her about her and would reject any form of psychological
alleged miscarriage, which escalated into an help rendering their condition long lasting if not
intense quarrel. Maribel left Noels house and incurable.
did not come back. Noel tried to communicate
with Maribel but he failed. After less than two
years of marriage, Noel filed a petition for
The OSG maintains that Maribels refusal to
declaration of nullity of marriage. Despite
have sexual intercourse with Noel did not
constitute psychological incapacity under Art.
36 as her traits were merely mild peculiarities in (2) The root cause of the psychological
her character or signs of ill-will and refusal or incapacity must be
neglect to perform her marital obligations.

(a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged

ISSUE: in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
Art. 36 requires that the incapacity must be
Whether the marriage is null and void under psychological not physical, although its
Art.36. manifestations and/or symptoms may be

(3) The incapacity must be existing at the
time of the celebration of the marriage.
No. The marriage is valid.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be

medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
Such incurability may be absolute or even
relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
necessarily absolutely against everyone of the
The phrase psychological incapacity is not same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be
meant to comprehend all possible cases of relevant to the assumption of marriage
psychoses. It refers to no less than a mental obligations.
incapacity that causes a party to be truly non
cognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to
by the parties to the marriage which, as
bring about the disability of the party to assume
expressed by Art. 68, include their mutual
the essential obligations of marriage. The illness
obligations to live together, observe love,
must be shown as downright incapacity or
respect and fidelity and render help and support.
inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty,
The intendment of the law has been to confine
much less ill will.
it to the most serious of cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. The essential marital obligations must be those
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
The following are guidelines in resolving
regard to parents and their children.
petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage,
based on Art. 36:

(7) Interpretations given by the National

Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling
the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
or decisive, should be given great respect by our
should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.

(8) The trial court must order the

prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor
General to appear as counsel for the state. No malady so grave and so permanent as to
decision shall be handed down unless the deprive one of awareness of the duties and
Solicitor General issues a certification, which responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is
will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating about to assume.
therein his reasons for his agreement or
opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.
18 Dino v. Dino

In this case, the totality of evidence presented

by Noel was not sufficient to sustain a finding
that Maribel was psychologically incapacitated.
Noels evidence merely established that Maribel FACTS:
refused to have sexual intercourse with him
Alain Dino and Ma. Caridad Dino were
after their marriage, and that she left him after
childhood friends and sweethearts who started
their quarrel when he confronted her about her
living together in 1984, separated in 1994, and
alleged miscarriage. He failed to prove the root
lived together again in 1996. On January 14,
cause of the alleged psychological incapacity
1998, they were married before Mayor Vergel
and establish the requirements of gravity,
Aguilar of Las Pinas City. On May 30, 2001,
juridical antecedence, and incurability. The
petitioner filed for the Declaration of Nullity of
report of the psychologist, who concluded that
Marriage on the ground of the respondents
Maribel was suffering from Narcissistic
psychological incapacity. Petitioner alleged that
Personality Disorder traceable to her
respondent failed in her marital obligation to
experiences during childhood, did not establish
give love and support to him, abandoned her
how the personality disorder incapacitated
responsibility to the family and that she was
Maribel from validly assuming the essential
unfaithful. Petitioner later learned that
obligations of the marriage. Indeed, the same
respondent filed a petition for divorce and was
psychologist even testified that Maribel was
granted by the Superior Court of California and
capable of entering into a marriage except that
that she married a certain Manuel Alcantara.
it would be difficult for her to sustain one. Mere
Doctor Tayag submitted a report establishing
difficulty is not the incapacity contemplated by
that the respondent was suffering from
Narcissitic Personality Disorder.

The burden falls upon petitioner, not just to

prove that private respondent suffers from a
psychological disorder, but also that such Did the trial court err when it ordered that a
psychological disorder renders her truly decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that be issued after liquidation, partition, and
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged distribution of parties properties under Article
by the parties to the marriage. Psychological 147 of the Family Code?
incapacity must be more than just a difficulty,
a refusal, or a neglect in the performance of
some marital obligations. An unsatisfactory HELD:
marriage is not a null and void marriage.
Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and
Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be Annulment of Voidable Marriages does not
confused with a divorce law that cuts the apply to Article 147 of the Family Code. It is
marital bond at the time the causes therefor clear from Article 50 of the Family Code that
manifest themselves. It refers to a serious Section 19(1) of the Rule applies only to
psychological illness afflicting a party even marriages which are declared void ab initio
before the celebration of the marriage. It is a under Articles 40 and 45 and not under Article
36 which is the ground for the nullification of Eric opposed this motion saying that the
the petitioner and respondents marriage. Thus, incident on declaration of nullity cannot be
the decision of the trial court is affirmed but resolved without presentation of evidence for
with modifications. the incidents on custody, support, and property
relations. Eric added that the incidental issues
and the issue on declaration of nullity can both
19 Yu v. Reyes proceed and be simultaneously resolved. RTC
ruled in favour of Erics opposition.

Caroline caused the inhibition of Judge Suarez,
so that the case was re-raffled to another
branch presided by Judge Reyes-Carpio. While
It is more proper to rule first on the declaration
the case was being tried by Judge Reyes-Carpio,
of nullity of marriage on the ground of each
Caroline filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the
partys psychological incapacity to perform their
strict observation by the said judge of the Rule
respective marital obligations. If the Court
on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
eventually finds that the parties respective
Marriage as codified in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,
petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage is
and that the case on the declaration on nullity
indeed meritorious on the basis of either or
be already submitted for resolution ahead of
both of the parties psychological incapacity,
the incidental issues, and not simultaneously.
then the parties shall proceed to comply with
Eric opposed this motion.
Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code before a
final decree of absolute nullity of marriage can
be issued. Pending such ruling on the
declaration of nullity of the parties marriage, Judge Reyes-Carpio granted the Omnibus
the Court finds no legal ground, at this stage, to Motion, saying that the main cause of action is
proceed with the reception of evidence in the declaration of nullity of the marriage and
regard the issues on custody and property the incidental issues are merely ancillary
relations, since these are mere incidents of the incidents thereto. Eric moved for
nullity of the parties marriage. reconsideration, which was denied by Judge
Reyes-Carpio. Eric then filed for certiorari with
the CA under Rule 65. CA affirmed the judgment
of the trial court.

Eric Yu filed a petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage against Caroline T. Yu with the RTC
of Pasig. Judge Suarez on May 30, 2006 issued
an order stating that Erics partial offer of Whether the main issue of nullity of marriage
evidence dated April 18, 2006 would be must be submitted for resolution first before
submitted for resolution after certain exhibits the reception of evidence on custody, support,
have been remarked. But the exhibits were only and property relations (incidental issues) NO.
relative to the issue of the nullity of the
marriage of Eric and Caroline. On September 12,
2006, Caroline moved to submit the case for RATIO:
resolution, considering that the incidents on
custody, support, and property relations
(incidental issues) were mere consequences of It appears in the records that the Orders in
the declaration of nullity of the parties question, or what are alleged to have been
marriage. exercised with grave abuse of discretion, are
interlocutory orders. An interlocutory order is
one which does not finally dispose of the case, granting the petition, or, in case of appeal, upon
and does not end the Courts task of receipt of the entry of judgment of the
adjudicating the parties contentions and appellate court granting the petition, the Family
determining their rights and liabilities as regards Court, on motion of either party, shall proceed
each other, but obviously indicates that other with the liquidation, partition and distribution
things remain to be done by the Court. Eric Yu of the properties of the spouses, including
to prove that the assailed orders were issued custody, support of common children and
with grave abuse of discretion and that those delivery of their presumptive legitimes pursuant
were patently erroneous. Considering that the to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless
requisites that would justify certiorari as an such matters had been adjudicated in previous
appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory judicial proceedings.
order have not been complied with, the proper
recourse for petitioner should have been an
appeal in due course of the judgment of the Evidently, Judge Reyes-Carpio did not deny the
trial court on the merits, incorporating the reception of evidence on custody, support, and
grounds for assailing the interlocutory orders. property relations but merely deferred it, based
on the existing rules issued by this Court, to a
time when a decision granting the petition is
It must be noted that Judge Reyes-Carpio did already at hand and before a final decree is
not disallow the presentation of evidence on issued. Conversely, the trial court, or more
the incidents on custody, support, and property particularly the family court, shall proceed with
relations. It is clear in the assailed orders that the liquidation, partition and distribution,
the trial court judge merely deferred the custody, support of common children, and
reception of evidence relating to custody, delivery of their presumptive legitimes upon
support, and property relations. And the trial entry of judgment granting the petition. And
judges decision was not without basis. Judge following the pertinent provisions of the Court
Reyes-Carpio finds support in the Court En Banc En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, this
Resolution in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule act is undoubtedly consistent with Articles 50
on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void and 51 of the Family Code, contrary to what
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable petitioner asserts. Particularly, Arts. 50 and 51
Marriages. Particularly, Secs. 19 and 21 of the of the Family Code state:
Rule clearly allow the reception of evidence on
custody, support, and property relations after
the trial court renders a decision granting the Article 50. The final judgment in such cases shall
petition, or upon entry of judgment granting the provide for the liquidation, partition and
petition: distribution of the properties of the spouses,
the custody and support of the common
children, and the delivery of their presumptive
Section 19. Decision. (1) If the court renders a legitimes, unless such matters had been
decision granting the petition, it shall declare adjudicated in the previous judicial proceedings.
therein that the decree of absolute nullity or
decree of annulment shall be issued by the
court only after compliance with Articles 50 and Article 51. In said partition, the value of the
51 of the Family Code as implemented under presumptive legitimes of all common children,
the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and computed as of the date of the final judgment
Distribution of Properties. of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash,
property or sound securities, unless the parties,
by mutual agreement judicially approved, had
Section 21. Liquidation, partition and already provided for such matters.
distribution, custody, support of common
children and delivery of their presumptive
legitimes. Upon entry of the judgment
Also, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC clearly allows the
deferment of the reception of evidence on
custody, support, and property relations.
Conversely, the trial court may receive evidence
on the subject incidents after a judgment
granting the petition but before the decree of
nullity or annulment of marriage is issued. And
this is what Judge Reyes-Carpio sought to
comply with in issuing the assailed orders. As
correctly pointed out by the CA, Eric Yus
assertion that ruling the main issue without
receiving evidence on the subject incidents
would result in an ambiguous and fragmentary
judgment is certainly speculative and, hence,
contravenes the legal presumption that a trial
judge can fairly weigh and appraise the
evidence submitted by the parties.

Therefore, it cannot be said at all that Judge

Reyes-Carpio acted in a capricious and
whimsical manner, much less in a way that is
patently gross and erroneous, when she issued
the assailed orders deferring the reception of
evidence on custody, support, and property
relations. To reiterate, this decision is left to the
trial courts wisdom and legal soundness.
Consequently, therefore, the CA cannot likewise
be said to have committed grave abuse of
discretion in upholding the Orders of Judge
Reyes-Carpio and in ultimately finding an
absence of grave abuse of discretion on her part

20 Buado v. People