Paterno v. Paterno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner and respondent were married in 1987. Petitioner filed for declaration of nullity of marriage in 2000 due to respondent's psychological incapacity, which was granted in 2005, with both parties found psychologically incapacitated. Proceedings for liquidation of properties and delivery of children's legitimes were pending. Procedural History: Respondent sought to present petitioner as a hostile witness to testify on salaries and properties acquired post-separation until declaration of nullity. The RTC initially granted, then recalled the subpoena, ruling that salaries earned after de facto separation are not co-owned properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The CA affirmed this. Meanwhile, the liquidation proceedings were re-raffled to another RTC branch. Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion for appraisal, partition, accounting, and/or delivery of her share in admitted co-owned properties, including a house and lot, condominium unit, club membership, shares of stock, a vehicle, paintings, furniture, and books. Petitioner opposed, arguing that mortgage payments for the Ayala Alabang and Rockwell properties were made solely from his funds after separation, thus should not be co-owned. The RTC granted partial delivery of respondent's share and increased monthly support to P250,000.00, reasoning that properties acquired during marriage are presumed conjugal unless proven exclusive, and that co-ownership applies upon voiding of marriage. The RTC's orders were affirmed by the CA, which found no grave abuse of discretion. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's orders which were allegedly issued with grave abuse of discretion, contrary to law, and based on misapprehension of facts, particularly concerning the ownership of properties acquired after separation and the increase in support.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the trial court's orders despite alleged lack of clear statement of facts and law, and whether the RTC needed to observe judicial courtesy regarding the pending petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 180226). Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that grave abuse of discretion was not attendant in the trial court's orders that were allegedly contrary to law and jurisprudence, based on a gross misapprehension of facts, or issued without giving the petitioner the opportunity to fully argue his position. Whether the property relations of parties to a void marriage are governed by Article 147 or 148 of the Family Code. Whether properties acquired during the parties' de facto separation but before the judicial declaration of nullity of marriage are part of the co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code. Regarding the Ayala Alabang and Rockwell properties, whether the co-ownership under Article 147 is considered terminated upon the parties' separation, and how this affects the determination of shares. Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the partial delivery of respondent's share in the conjugal partnership and increasing monthly support.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court for accounting, reception of evidence, and evaluation for the proper determination of the ownership and share of the parties in the nine properties, as well as the determination of arrears in support.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issues (judicial courtesy, due process, misapprehension of facts): The Court found that the CA did not err in ruling that the RTC did not need to await the SC's decision in G.R. No. 180226 because the issues before the RTC involved properties admitted as common, distinct from those in G.R. No. 180226 concerning properties acquired post-separation. The Court also found no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC's resolution of the motion for reconsideration without waiting for the petitioner's reply, as the motion should have contained all arguments, and the petitioner had access to legal counsel. The Court also noted that issues regarding errors of judgment, not jurisdiction, were not proper for a certiorari petition. On the procedural issues (grave abuse of discretion): The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC's resolution of the motion for reconsideration without waiting for the petitioner's reply, as the motion should have contained all arguments, and the petitioner had access to legal counsel. The Court also noted that issues regarding errors of judgment, not jurisdiction, were not proper for a certiorari petition. On the applicability of Article 147 of the Family Code: The Court reiterated that the property relations of parties to a void marriage are governed by Article 147 or 148 of the Family Code. In this case, since the parties were capacitated to marry but their marriage was declared void due to psychological incapacity, their property relation is one of co-ownership under Article 147. This provision applies retroactively as it is a remake of Article 144 of the Civil Code and does not impair vested rights. Article 147 states that wages and salaries are owned in equal shares, and property acquired through work or industry is governed by co-ownership rules. Properties acquired during cohabitation are presumed to be through joint efforts and owned in equal shares, with efforts in care and maintenance of the family and household considered contributions. On the ownership of properties acquired during de facto separation: The Court affirmed its prior ruling in G.R. No. 180226 that Article 147 of the Family Code applies only to properties acquired by the parties while they lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife. The cohabitation, for the purpose of Article 147, does not include the period after the parties' de facto separation. Therefore, properties acquired after separation are not presumed to be co-owned. The presumption of co-ownership applies to properties purchased during cohabitation, even if on installment, but the co-ownership is considered terminated upon separation. Thus, the equal share pertains only to the portion paid before separation. On the Ayala Alabang and Rockwell properties: The Court clarified that while these properties were purchased during cohabitation, the co-ownership under Article 147 is considered terminated upon the parties' separation. Therefore, the equal sharing presumption applies only to the portion of the properties paid for before their separation. Any payments made after separation from the petitioner's exclusive funds would not form part of the co-ownership. The Court remanded the case for determination of the exact shares based on payments made during cohabitation and after separation. On the increase in monthly support: The Court held that the obligation of mutual support between spouses ceases upon the finality of the judgment declaring the marriage void. After the declaration of nullity, the petitioner's obligation was only to support their children. The RTC gravely abused its discretion in increasing the support based on the needs of all three children when two had already reached the age of majority and the respondent no longer had the authority to claim support on their behalf. Furthermore, since the petition was filed in 2014 and the youngest daughter had also reached majority by then, the P250,000.00 support amount was no longer justified. The Court noted that judgments on support are not final and can be modified.
Main Doctrine
In cases of void marriages governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, properties acquired during the cohabitation are presumed to be co-owned and acquired through joint efforts, including efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household. This presumption is disputable. The co-ownership is considered terminated upon the parties' separation or desistance to continue their relations, limiting the co-ownership to properties acquired and paid for during the period of cohabitation.