Petitioner: BRIGIDO B.

QUIAO,
Respondents.: RITA C. QUIAO, KITCHIE C. QUIAO, LOTIS C. QUIAO, PETCHIE C.
QUIAO, represented by their mother RITA QUIAO

G.R. No 176556

July 4, 2012

Facts:

Petitioner Brigido Quiao was married to respondent Rita Quiao in 1977 and got four
children. They had no separate properties prior to their marriage.

In 2000, Rita filed a complaint against Brigido for legal separation for cohabiting with
another woman. Subsequently, the RTC rendered a decision in 2005 declaring the legal
separation of the parties pursuant to Article 55, thereby awarding the custody of their
three minor children in favor 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 Family Code.

A few months thereafter, Rita filed a motion for execution, which was granted by the trial
court. By 2006, Brigido paid Rita with regards to the earlier decision; the writ was
partially executed.

After more than nine months, 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.”

Upon a motion for reconsideration, it initially set aside its previous decision stating that
net profit earned shall be computed in accordance with par. 4 of Article 102 of the
Family Code. However, it later reverted to its original Order, setting aside the last ruling.

Issue:

Whether or not the offending spouse acquired vested rights over ½ of the properties in
the conjugal partnership.
Held:

In the case at bar, since 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 are considered part of the conjugal partnership. Thus, ordinarily,
what remains in the 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.

So, as not to 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.