LIQUIDATION

BRIGIDO QUIOA vs. RITA QUIAO

G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012

Facts:
Respondent Rita Quiao, the offended spouse, filed a legal separation against the petitioner
Brigido Quiao on October 26, 2000 before the RTC. The decision of the court dated October 10,
2005 declared the legal separation, custody of children to Rita, equal partition on the personal and real
properties, and forfeiture on the part of Brigido the net profits earned from the conjugal properties in
favor of the common children. Neither party filed a Motion for Reconsideration and appealed within
the required period for legal separation. December 12, 2005, Rita filed a Motion for Execution and
was later on granted.

Brigido file a Motion for Clarification on the “net profit earned”. The Court defined it as the
remainder of the properties of the parties after deducting the separate properties of each [of the]
spouse and the debts basing on Articles 63 and 43 of the Family Code. Brigido filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on September 8, 2006. Though the petition was after the required prescriptive period,
the court granted the petition since its purpose was to clarify the meaning of the “net profit earned”.
With that on November 8, 2006 the court ordered that the “net profit earned” be based on the Article
102 of the family Code.

November 21, 2006, the respondent, Rita, filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) praying
for the reversal of the Nov. 8, 2006 court order. The Court then granted the MR. Brigido then filed a
Petition for Review questioning the following: dissolution and liquidation of the common properties,
meaning of the “net profit earned”, and the law governing the property relation between him and Rita.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner can question the decision by the RTC dated October 10, 2005.

Ruling:
No. Brigido wasn’t able to timely appeal the decision of the court dated October 10, 2005,
thus, the decision on that date is deemed final and executory hence, he had slept on his right to
question. The respondent tied the marital knot on January 6, 1977. Since at the time of the exchange
of marital vows, the operative law was the Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386) and since they
did not agree on a marriage settlement, the property relations between the petitioner and the
respondent is the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gain. And under this
property relation, "the husband and the wife place in a common fund the fruits of their separate
property and the income from their work or industry." The husband and wife also own in common
all the property of the conjugal partnership of gains. the time of the dissolution of the petitioner and
the respondent's marriage the operative law is already the Family Code, the same applies in the instant
case and the applicable law in so far as the liquidation of the conjugal partnership assets and liabilities
is concerned is Article 129 of the Family Code in relation to Article 63(2) of the Family Code. The
latter provision is applicable because according to Article 256 of the Family Code "this Code shall
have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance
with the Civil Code or other law."