Diño v. Diño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alain M. Diño (petitioner) and Ma. Caridad L. Diño (respondent) were married on January 14, 1998, after cohabiting since 1984 and then again from 1996. Petitioner filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on May 30, 2001, citing psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged respondent's failure in marital obligations, abandonment of family responsibilities, depletion of assets, infidelity, and violence. Respondent, residing in the United States, was served summons but did not file an answer. Petitioner later learned respondent had obtained a divorce in California on May 25, 2001, and remarried. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 254, granted the petition in its Decision dated October 18, 2006, declaring the marriage null and void due to respondent's psychological incapacity and dissolving the absolute community of property. Petitioner sought partial reconsideration regarding the dissolution of property and the issuance of the decree of nullity. In its Order dated March 12, 2007, the RTC modified its previous decision, stating the decree of absolute nullity would be issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's modification that the decree of absolute nullity would only be issued after the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. Petitioner argued that Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages does not apply to cases governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, which pertains to property relations in void marriages not declared void under Articles 40 or 45 of the Family Code. The Supreme Court agreed, modifying the RTC's decision to state that the decree of absolute nullity shall be issued upon finality of the decision without waiting for property liquidation.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred when it ordered that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. Whether Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages applies to cases governed under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with the modification that the decree of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be issued upon finality of the trial court’s decision without waiting for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the trial court erred in ordering the decree of absolute nullity to be issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties under Article 147 of the Family Code: The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner that the trial court erred. The Court clarified that Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages does not apply to cases governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code. Article 50 of the Family Code, which is implemented by Section 19(1) of the Rule, specifically applies only to marriages declared void ab initio or annulled under Articles 40 and 45 of the Family Code. These articles pertain to bigamous marriages and voidable marriages, respectively, where property relations are typically governed by absolute community of property or conjugal partnership of gains, necessitating liquidation. In contrast, marriages declared void under Article 36, as in this case, are governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership, as provided in Article 147 of the Family Code. Therefore, the liquidation of properties is not a prerequisite for the issuance of the decree of absolute nullity in Article 36 cases. The Court reiterated its ruling in Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City that in void marriages, property relations during cohabitation are governed by Article 147 or 148, and the rules on co-ownership apply, allowing for partition by agreement or judicial proceedings separate from the nullity case. The Court emphasized that it is not necessary to liquidate the properties in the same proceeding for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36. Consequently, the decree of absolute nullity should be issued upon the finality of the decision, irrespective of the pending liquidation of properties. On the issue of whether Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages applies to cases governed under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code: As stated above, the Court clarified that Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages does not apply to cases governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.
Main Doctrine
A decree of absolute nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code shall be issued upon finality of the decision without waiting for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties' properties, as the property relations in such void marriages are governed by the rules on co-ownership under Article 147 or 148 of the Family Code, not by Article 50 of the Family Code which applies to marriages void under Articles 40 and 45.