Domingo v.

CA

Facts:
1969 – previous marriage of Roberto Domingo and Emerlina dela Paz
1976 – married Delia Soledad Domingo
1979 – present
– Delia was working in Saudi, and provided for the family while husband remained unemployed (1983-present)
– also purchased real and personal properties out of her personal earnings.
Roberto became the administrator of the properties
1983 – when Delia knew of first marriage
1989 – when she discovered he had another woman and was also selling her property without her consent.

Thus asked lower court for

(1) a temporary restraining order stopping Roberto from exercising any act of administration and ownership over the properties
(2) for their marriage to be declared null and void
(3) Delia be declared sole and exclusive owner of all properties acquired at time of their void marriage.

RTC – denied for lack of merit since marriage is seen as void in the first place thus steps aren‘t necessary

CA: held that prayer for nullity along with separation of properties may be raised however they were still denied for lack of merit. Thus
case is in SC

ISSUE: WON respondent may recover certain real and personal property exclusively belonging to her

HELD: YES
- Distribution and separation of property of spouses is one of the reasons why there‘s a need to judicially declare that a marriage is void.
- Court that declares a marriage void will also provide for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties of spouses. It is a
necessary consequence of judicial declaration of absolute nullity of marriage
Rules that apply: FC Art 43 and 44
Separation of property will be according to regime of property relations governing them.

CONCURRING BY VITUG
When a void marriage is still in existence (without judical declaration of nullity) neither the CPG or ACP will apply instead, property
relations shall be governed by co-ownership rules under Art 147 or Art 148 of FC.