Lavadia v.

Heirs of Luna Name of Digester: Geronilla

G.R. No. 171914 July 23, 2014 Ponente: J. Bersamin
Subject / Syllabus Topic: Marriage dissolved of foreign judgment
Petitioner: Soledad L. Lavadia Respondents: Heirs of Juan Luces Luna,
represented by Gregorio Z. Luna and
Eugenia Zaballero-Luna
Facts:
 Atty. Juan Luces Luna, married Eugenia Luna (first wife) in a civil ceremony in 1947 and
later solemnized the marriage in a church in 1948. During their marriage, they had 7
children.
 Almost 2 decades of being married, they agreed to live apart and dissolve and liquidate
their conjugal partnership of property. In 1976, Atty. Luna obtained a divorce decree on
his marriage with Eugenia in the Court of First Instance in Sto. Domingo, Dominican
Republic.
 On the same date he contracted another marriage with Soledad Lavadia. Thereafter,
they returned to the Philippines. In 1977, Atty. Luna organized a new law firm with his
partners called LUPISCON.
 They bought a condominium unit in Makati City for their law firm, with Atty. Luna’s share
being 46/100 later becoming 38/100. After LUPISCON dissolved in 1992, Luna’s share
was stipulated to be 25/100.
 Later, Atty. Luna and Atty. De La Cruz established a new law firm which lasted until
Luna’s death in 1997. Gregorio Z. Luna (Luna’s son with his first wife) took over Luna’s
share in the condo, which he leased out to Atty. De La Cruz, Luna’s law books, and other
equipment.
 Soledad filed a complaint for the 25/100 pro indiviso share & other equipment taken by
Gregorio Luna.
 Soledad claims that she is the co-owner because of her marriage with Atty. Luna and
that the Heirs of Luna did not give her the share of the properties.
 On August 27, 2001, the RTC ruled that the 25/100 share of the condo was
acquired through Atty. Luna’s sole industry, that the plaintiff had no right as
owner of the condominium, and that the Plaintiff is declared to be the owner
of 4 certain law books.
 Both Parties appealed to the CA. Soledad states that the RTC erred in many aspects of
their decisions. The respondents stated that the lower court erred in their decision for
Soledad to acquire the books.
 On November 11, 2005, The CA promulgated its assailed modified decision which stated
that Eugenia was the legitimate wife of Atty. Luna until his death in 1997 and that the
divorce decree he obtained in the Dominican Republic was invalid.
 The modified ruling was comprised of the same decisions except that this time, the
books were adjudged to be acquired by the heirs of Luna. In 2006, The CA denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
 Soledad states that Atty. Luna and Eugenia’s conjugal partnership was not dissolved and
liquidated, the Dominican Republic’s decision on the divorce decree was valid, she had
proof of actual contributions to the share of the condo, and that she was entitled to the
ownership of the law books.
Issue/s: Dispositive: Court AFFIRMS the decision
a) Whether or not the divorce between Atty. promulgated on November 11, 2005; and
Luna and Eugenia Luna had validly dissolved ORDERS the petitioner to pay costs of suit.
the first marriage
b) Whether the second marriage entitled
Soledad to any rights in property
Holding:
a) No. Atty. Luna’s first marriage with Eugenia subsisted up to the time of his death
Atty. Luna’s first marriage with Eugenia was solemnized in 1947 and that law in force at the
time was the Spanish Civil Code, which adopted the Nationality Rule, which was also followed
by the Civil Code. Philippine Laws relating to family rights and duties, status, condition and
legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, although living abroad.
This governed the marriage of Atty. Luna and Eugenia, being Filipinos until the death of Luna
in 1997, which terminated their marriage. The divorce decree obtained from the Dominican
Republic was not valid under the Philippine Constitution.

b) No. The Agreement of Separation of Property Settlement was void for lack of court approval

Article 119 of the Civil Code states that marriage settlements may allow future spouses to
agree upon absolute or relative community of property. But without marriage settlements or
that the same is void, the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains as
established in this code shall govern the property relations between husband and wife.

In this case, the conjugal partnership of gains is terminated upon the death of either spouse,
pursuant to Article 175. The Conjugal Partnerships of gains of Atty. Luna and Eugenia
subsisted in the lifetime of their marriage or until the former’s death.

Atty. Luna’s marriage with Soledad, being bigamous, was void. Properties acquired
during their marriage were governed by the rules on co-ownership.

Article 71 of the Civil Code clearly states that all marriages outside the Philippines in
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were performed, and valid there
as such, shall also be valid in this country, except bigamous, polygamous, or incestuous
marriages as determined by Philippine Law.

Atty. Luna and Soledad’s marriage being void ab initio by virtue of being bigamous
entitles that their properties shared together falls under the Rules on Co-ownership, pursuant
to Article 144 of the Civil Code. Being void of any proof of actual contributions to declare any
rights to property, Soledad’s mere allegations of co-ownership would warrant no relief in her
favor.