Q: Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married in 1971 and begotten 5 children.

Valdez filed a petition in

1992 for a declaration of nullity of their marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC of Quezon
City rendered judgment and declared the marriage null and void under Art. 36 of the FC and ordered the liquidation
of their common properties as defined by Art. 147 of the FC and to comply with the provisions of Art. 50, 51and 52
of the FC. Valdez argues that the rules on equal co-ownership does not apply to cases where the parties are
psychological incapacitated. Is the contention of Valdez correct?

A: Yes. Art. 147 (property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules
on equal co-ownership.) applies because there was no legal impediment to their marriage and they were
capacitated wherein the word capacitated refers to legal capacity of a party to contract i.e., any "male or female of
the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of their impediments mentioned in Articles 37 and 38 of the
Code. [Valdes v. QC-RTC, G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996]

Q: Alain filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of marriage based on the psychological incapacity (Art. 36 of the
Family Code) of Caridad. The RTC granted Alain’s petition. However, the dispositive portion requires that a decree
of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued upon compliance with Art. 50 and 51 of the Family Code. Alain
filed a petition questioning that requirement. The RTC partially granted the petition with modifications stating that
a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall be issued after liquidation,
partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. Is the court correct?

A: Yes.
For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following elements must be present:
1. The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each other;
2. They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
3. Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void.
[Dino v. Dino, G.R. No.: 178044, Jan. 19, 2011]

Q: Is the reception of evidence on custody, support and property relations is necessary for a complete and
comprehensive adjudication of the parties’ respective claims?

A: Court En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Particularly, Secs. 19 and 21 of the Rule clearly allow the reception of
evidence on custody, support, and property relations after the trial court renders a decision granting the petition,
or upon entry of judgment granting the petition.
[Yu v. Reyes-Carpio G.R. 189207, June 15, 2011]

Q: In the partition of conjugal property, what is the effect of the court order approving the sale of the conjugal
dwelling when a spouse with whom majority of the common children choose to remain seek to declare the nullity
of the sale of such conjugal property?

A: Pursuant to Art. 129 of the Family Code, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall, unless
otherwise agreed upon by the parties, be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority of the common children
choose to remain. It is only when absent such majority when the court can decide.

Q: Is the computation of “net profits” earned in the conjugal partnership of gains the same with the computation of
“net profits” earned in the absolute community? NO.

When a couple enters into a regime of absolute community, the husband and the wife become joint owners of all
the properties of the marriage. Whatever property each spouse brings into the marriage, and those acquired during
the marriage (except those excluded under Article 92 of the Family Code) form the common mass of the couple’s
properties. And when the couple’s marriage or community is dissolved, that common mass is divided between the
spouses, or their respective heirs, equally or in the proportion the parties have established, irrespective of the value
each one may have originally owned.

On the other hand, when a couple enters into a regime of conjugal partnership of gains under Article142 of the Civil
Code, “the husband and the wife place in common fund the fruits of their separate property and income from their
work or industry, and divide equally, upon the dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or
benefits obtained indiscriminately by either spouse during the marriage.” From the foregoing provision, each of the
couple has his and her own property and debts. The law does not intend to effect a mixture or merger of those debts
or properties between the spouses. Rather, it establishes a complete separation of capitals.
[Quiao v. Quiao, July 4, 2012]