In the Matter of the Voluntary Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership of SpsBernas
Appeal from a decision of CFI Zamboanga (1965)
FACTS:In May 1962, petitioner-sps Jose Bermas, Sr. & Pilar Manuel Bermas executed anAgreement for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership & Sep of Property, after mutuallyagreeing to dissolve such. It
that they are and have been legally marriedsince Dec 24, 1932, w/ 2children, both of age and married. During their marriage,they acquired 12 parcels of land and 2 bldgs. The
of this Agreement is toprevent friction, dissension and confusion among their respective heirs in the future,particulary because petitioner H Jose has 2 sets of children: 1 by former marriage,another by his present W. The
of this agreement/contract concerns theincome derived from rentals and quitclaim that any property acquired by any orboth of the parties shall pertain to him or her exclusively, or to both as co-owners,as the case may be.The petition was filed in June stating the above mentioned facts and that thisvoluntary dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the marriage is allowed,under Art 191 of CC, subject to judicial approval. Moreover, the sps have nooutstanding debts/obligs and the sep of properties would not prejudice any creditoror 3
persons. Hearing was set in July and notice to that effect was published in anewspaper of gen circulation in Zamboanga City once a wk, for 3 consecutive wks.However, after the hearing, the court denied the petition on the ground that underCC Art 192,
a conjugal partnership shall only be dissolved once legal separation hasbeen ordered
and exceptions, under Art 191,
are civil interdiction, declaration of absence or abandonment
. And upon approval of the petition for dissolution, thecourt shall take such measures as may protect the creditors and
other third persons
.ISSUE:WON conjugal partnership may be dissolved w/o notification of children of theparties’ previous marriagesHELD:
, in a proceeding for dissolution of a conjugal partnership under Art 191CC, it is essential that children of previous marriages shall be personally notified of said proceeding.In this case, the names and addresses of children by previous marriage of JoseBermas, Sr. have not been given and it appears that they have not been notifiedpersonally of the filing of the petition and of the date of its hearing even though thedanger of substantial injury to their rights would seem to be remote. At any rate,the rights of the children by the 1
marriage are still affected in the event that whenthere is doubt, the partnership property shall be divided between diff conjugalpartnerships in proportion to the duration of each and to the property belonging tothe respective sps.Decision appealed set aside. Case remanded to lower court for further proceedings.
Alfonso LACSON, petitioner vs. Carmen SAN JOSE-LACSON & CA,respondentsCarmen San Jose-Lacson, plaintiff-appellant vs. Alfonso Lacson, defendant-appelleeAlfonso Lacson, petitioner-appellee vs. Carmen San Jose-Lacson,petitioner-appellant
Appeal by certiorari fr. CA decision & resolution. 3 cases consolidated & decided on Aug. 30, 1968.
Feb. 14, 1953: Alfonso & Carmen were married. They had 4 children.
Jan. 9, 1963: Carmen left their conjugal home in Sta. Clara Subd., Bacolod toreside in Manila.
March 12, 1963: Carmen filed w/Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court (JDRC)for custody of all children & demanded support for them & herself. Sps reachedan amicable settlement.
Apr. 27, 1963: CFI approved
filed by sps in a jointpetition stipulating that they have separated & that they mutually agreed upondissolution of CP subj to judicial approval pursuant to CC Art.191. Terms of themutual agreement are as follows:1.Carmen waived any claims for share in prop held by Alfonso since theydidn’t acquire prop of any consequence2.After dissolution, they will own, dispose of, possess, administer & enjoyseparate estates & earnings from any profession, business or industry asthey may acquire w/o consent of the other.3.Two elder kids, Enrique & Teresa, will stay w/dad while two younger,Gerrard & Ramon, will stay w/Mom.4.Alfonso to provide Carmen w/monthly allowance of P300.00 for support of kids in her custody.5.Sps will have reciprocal rts of visitation. Exchange custodies duringsummer vacation. Except that for 1963 summer, all 4 kids will stay w/Mom& elder 2 will be returned to dad on June 15, 1963.6.They have no creditors.
May 7, 1963: Carmen filed in JDRC motion stating that she entered into JointPetition as only means to have immediate custody of minor children all below 7.She prayed for relief fr agreement re custody & visitation. She likewise prayedthat her custody of children be confirmed pendente lite. Alfonso opposed & moved for dismissal of petition ongroudns of res judicata (thing/matter settledby judgment) & lis pendens (pending suit). JDRC dismissed case sustainingAlfonso’s grounds. Raised to CA w/c certified such to SC since only ques of lawis involved.
May 15, 1963: Carmen filed MFR re compromise judgment invoking samegrounds as May 7 petition. Alfonso opposed & filed a motion for execution of compromise judgment & charge for contempt. CFI denied Carmen’s MFR & granted motion for execution and that Carmen may be held for contempt if shefails to deliver 2 elder children to Alfonso. Raised to CA w/c again certified caseto SC.
Carmen instituted certiorari proceeding before CA claiming that judge whodecided May 15 petition committed grave abuse of discretion in orderingexecution of compromise judgment in effect depriving her rt to appeal. Sheprayed for:1.writ of prelim injunction to enjoin enforcement by contempt proceedings & other means, the writ of execution.2.setting aside of compromise judgment after hearing.