Ocampo v. Ocampo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the liquidation of properties acquired during the marriage of Virginia Ocampo and Deogracio Ocampo, which was later declared null and void due to psychological incapacity. The marriage was solemnized on January 16, 1978, and Virginia filed a petition for declaration of nullity on September 10, 1990. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 87, declared the marriage null and void on January 22, 1993. After the decision became final, the RTC directed the parties to submit a project of partition for their conjugal properties. Following a hearing due to their failure to agree, the RTC issued an order on January 13, 2004, stating that the properties belonged to each party on a 50-50 sharing basis. Virginia appealed this order to the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied her appeal on August 11, 2010, and subsequently denied her motion for reconsideration on October 5, 2011. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court on a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner, Virginia Ocampo, seeks to reverse the CA's decision and resolution, primarily questioning whether the respondent should be deprived of his share in the conjugal partnership of gains due to alleged bad faith and psychological perversity. The petition argues that the properties acquired during the marriage should be governed by the rules on co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code, and that the respondent should not receive a share due to his alleged indiscretions and lack of contribution.
Issue(s)
Whether the property relations of parties whose marriage is declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code are governed by the rules on conjugal partnership of gains or by Article 147 of the Family Code. Whether the properties acquired during the marriage should be divided on a 50-50 sharing basis.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for proper disposition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicable property regime in a void marriage under Article 36: The Court reiterated that in a void marriage, as declared under Article 36 of the Family Code, the property relations of the parties during their cohabitation are governed by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code. Specifically, Article 147 applies to unions where parties are legally capacitated but their marriage is void. This article mandates that wages and salaries are owned in equal shares, and property acquired through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. The Court emphasized that in the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while living together are presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts and are owned in equal shares. Furthermore, efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household are considered contributions to the acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry. The Court clarified that the rules governing the liquidation of absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains are irrelevant to the liquidation of co-ownership between common-law spouses or spouses of void marriages. On the equal sharing of properties: The Court affirmed the findings of the trial and appellate courts that the subject properties were acquired during the marriage and should be shared equally. The Court gave deference to the factual findings of the lower courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, absent any sufficient reason to doubt their correctness. The Court noted that both parties substantially agreed that the properties were acquired during the marriage. Certificates of title and tax declarations in the name of one spouse are not sufficient proof to overcome the presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code that all properties acquired during the marriage are conjugal, unless proven otherwise. The presumption remains even if the property is registered in the name of one or both spouses. Virginia failed to rebut this presumption that the properties were obtained by their joint efforts, work, or industry, and thus should be jointly owned in equal shares. The Court found that Virginia's testimonial evidence aimed at establishing Deogracio's lack of participation in acquiring the properties failed to convince the Court to grant him only a meager share. Even if Virginia managed the businesses, it was presumed she did so with the help of Deogracio, analogous to a housewife contributing to the acquisition of property through household care while the husband engages in lucrative activities. Attempts to portray Deogracio as an irresponsible husband failed to convince the Court to deprive him of his share.
Main Doctrine
In a marriage declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code due to psychological incapacity, the property relations of the parties during their cohabitation are governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, which establishes a regime of co-ownership where properties acquired through their work or industry are owned in equal shares, with contributions to the care and maintenance of the family and household considered as valid contributions to property acquisition.