UGALDE V. YSASI, G.R. NO.
130623, FEBRUARY 29, 2008 (1) Upon the death of either spouse;
Facts: Lorea Ugalde and Jon de Ysasi got married beforeMunicipal Judge Remigio Peña of
Hinigaran, Negros Occidental and on March 1, 1951, Rev. Msgr. Flaviano Arriola
solemnized their church wedding at the San Sebastian Cathedral in Bacolod City. Petitioner
and respondent did not execute any ante-nuptial agreement. They had a son named Jon de
Ysasi III.
Later on, they separated and the respondent contracted another marriage with Victoria
Eleanor Smith. Petitioner alleged that respondent and Smith had been acquiring and
disposing of real and personal properties to her prejudice as the lawful wife and that she
had been defrauded of rental income, profits, and fruits of their conjugal properties.
Petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains against
respondent before the RTC of Negros Occidental.
Thereafter, respondent contended that he and the petitioner entered into an agreement
which provides that their conjugal partnership shall be deemed dissolved. Pursuant to this,
an Amicable Settlement was submitted to the CFI of Negros Occidental. CFI approved the
Amicable Settlement.
Respondent likewise alleged that petitioner already obtained a divorce from him before the
Supreme Court of Mexico. Petitioner then contracted a second marriage with Richard
Galoway and upon the latter’s death, she contracted a third marriage with Frank Scholey.
Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition for dissolution of the conjugal
partnership of gains on the grounds of estoppel, laches, and res judicata. Further,
respondent alleged that their marriage was void because it was executed without the benefit
of a marriage license.
TC- ruled that there was no conjugal partnership of gains and that since they entered into an
amicable settlement which was later on approved, the petitioner may no longer repudiate it.
CA- affirmed the decision of the trial court
Issue:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the Trial Court's Decision which
dismissed the action for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains?
2. Whether or not the TC exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling on the validity of the
petitioner and respondent’s marriage?
Held:
1. No.
Petitioner and respondent were married on 15 February 1951. Thus, the applicable law is
the Civil Code (RA 386).
Under Article 175 of the Civil Code, the judicial separation of property results in the
termination of the conjugal partnership of gains:
Art. 175. The conjugal partnership of gains terminates:
(2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
(3) When the marriage is annulled;
(4) In case of judicial separation of property under Article 191. (Emphasis supplied)
The finality of the Amicable Settlement approving the parties' separation of property resulted
in the termination of the conjugal partnership of gains in accordance with Article 175 of the
Family Code. Hence, when the trial court decided on the petition for dissolution of the
conjugal partnership of gains (S.P. No 3330), the conjugal partnership between petitioner
and respondent was already dissolved.
The Amicable Settlement had become final as between petitioner and respondent when it
was approved by the CFI on June 6, 1961. The CFI's approval of the Compromise
Agreement resulted in the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains between petitioner
and respondent on even date.
2. Yes.
The trial court then proceeded to rule on the validity of petitioner and respondent's marriage.
The trial court ruled that it was shown by competent evidence that petitioner and respondent
failed to obtain a marriage license. Hence, the marriage between petitioner and respondent
was null and void, and no community of property was formed between them.
The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling on the validity of petitioner and respondent's
marriage, which was only raised by respondent as a defense to the action for dissolution of
the conjugal partnership of gains. The validity of petitioner and respondent's marriage was
the subject of another action, Civil Case No. 430 for Judicial Declaration of Absolute Nullity
of Marriage before RTC of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental. In 1995, the said court ruled
that the marriage was null and void for failure to comply with the formal and essential
requirements of the law.
NOVERAS VS NOVERAS G.R. 188289, AUGUST 20, 2014
Facts: David and Leticia Noveras are US citizens who acquired properties in the USA and
in the Philippines during the marriage. They have 2 children. According to Leticia, sometime
in September 2003, David abandoned his family and lived with his mistress. Further, she
claimed that they executed a joint affidavit where he renounced all his rights and interest in
the conjugal and real properties situated in the Philippines.
After learning of David’s extra-marital affair, Leticia filed a petition for divorce before the
Superior Court of California. Divorce was granted and judgment was duly entered on 29
June 2005. The California court granted to Leticia the custody of her two children, as well as
all the couple’s properties in the USA.
Leticia then filed a petition for Judicial Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC of
Baler, Aurora. She relied on the 3 December 2003 Joint Affidavit and David’s failure to
comply with his obligation under the same. David demanded that the conjugal partnership
properties, which also include the USA properties, be liquidated since a divorce decree was
already entered.
The RTC regarded that since the parties are US citizens, their marriage is hereby declared
DISSOLVED pursuant to the divorce decree. Thus, the trial court considered the petition
filed by Leticia as one for liquidation of the absolute community of property instead of an
action for judicial separation of conjugal property. Their property was classified as absolute
community because they did not execute any marriage settlement before the solemnization
of their marriage pursuant to Article 75 of the Family Code.
Then, the trial court ruled that in accordance with the doctrine of processual presumption,
Philippine law should apply because the court cannot take judicial notice of the US law since
the parties did not submit any proof of their national law. The court adjudicated the
Philippine properties to David subject to the payment of the children’s legitimes.
On appeal, the CA modified the decision and directed the equal division of the Philippine
properties between the spouses and both should pay their children the amount
of P520,000.00.
that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, asthe case may be,
and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.
Section 25 of the same Rule states that whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy
is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be
the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
Based on the records, only the divorce decree was presented in evidence. The required
certificates to prove its authenticity, as well as the pertinent California law on divorce were
not presented. Even if we apply the doctrine of processual presumption,divorce is not
recognized between Filipino citizens in the Philippines. Absent a valid recognition of the
divorce decree, it follows that the parties are still legally married in the Philippines. The trial
court thus erred in proceeding directly to liquidation.

In the present petition, David insists that CA should have recognized the California 2. Yes. Art 135 of the Family Code provides that: Any of the following shall be considered
Judgment which awarded the Philippine properties to him and allowing Leticia to share in sufficient cause for judicial separation of property:
the Philippine properties is tantamount to unjust enrichment considering that she was
already granted all US properties by the California court. Xxxx

Issues
1. Whether the marriage between David and Leticia has been dissolved pursuant to the
divorce decree issued by the Superior Court of California;
2. Whether the filing of the judicial separation of property is proper in accordance with the
Family Code
Held:
1. The trial court erred in recognizing the divorce decree which severed the bond of
marriage between the parties. Foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts
under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the
effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. A copy of the foreign judgment may be
admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to
Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact for at least one
year and reconciliation is highly improbable.
The records of this case are replete with evidence that both parties had indeed separated
for more than a year and that reconciliation is highly improbable. First, it is undisputed that
the spouses had been living separately since 2003 when David decided to go back to the
Philippines to set up his own business. Second, Leticia heard from her friends that David
has been cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez, who represented herself as Estrellita Noveras.
Editha Apolonio, who worked in the hospital where David was once confined, testified that
she saw the name of Estrellita listed as the wife of David in the Consent for Operation
form. Third and more significantly, they had filed for divorce and it was granted by the
California court in June 2005.
Having established that Leticia and David had actually separated for at least one year, the
petition for judicial separation of absolute community of property should be granted.

Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or
tribunal may be proved by: (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody thereof. Such official publication or copy must be
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting
officer has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized
Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record
is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance,