MARYWIN ALBANO-SALES VS MAYOR REYNOLAN T.

SALES AND COURT OF APPEALS

GR. NO. 174803 JULY 13, 2009

DOCTRINE:

There were matters of genuine concern that had to be addressed prior to the dissolution of the property relations
of the parties as a result of the declaration of nullity of their marriage.

Allegations regarding the collection of rentals without proper accounting, sale of common properties without the
husband’s consent and misappropriation of the proceeds thereof, are factual issues which have to be addressed in
order to determine with certainty the fair and reasonable division and distribution of properties due to each party.

FACTS:

The present controversy stemmed from civil case filed by Marywin Albano Sales against her husband, Mayor
Reynolan T. Sales, for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership and separation of properties, and civil case filed
by Mayor Reynolan T. Sales for the declaration of nullity of their marriage. The two cases were consolidated and
tried jointly.

On January 4, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment declaring the marriage of Marywin and Reynolan void on the
ground of mutual psychological incapacity. It also ordered the dissolution of their conjugal partnership and
directed them to liquidate, partition and distribute their common property within 60 days from receipt of decision,
and comply with FC 50, 51, and 52 as may be applicable.

On June 16, 2003, after the decision became final, Marywin filed for execution and a manifestation listing her
assets with Reynolan for partition. Reynolan opposed the motion arguing that the RTC Decision had ordered the
distribution of their common properties without specifying what they were. He also claimed that Marywin has no
share in the properties she specified because said properties were the fruits solely of his industry. He added that
their property relations should not be governed by the rules of co-ownership because they did not live together as
husband and wife. He also alleged that Marywin appropriated the rentals of his properties and even disposed one
of them without his consent, in violation of Article 147 of the Family Code. Accordingly, he prayed for the deferral
of the resolution of the motion for execution, maintaining that no partition of properties can be had until after all
the matters he raised are resolved after due notice and hearing.

On September 3, 2003, RTC set the case for hearing on September 25, 2003 and ordered the reception of evidence
on claims.

On November 24, 2003, Marywin filed a reiterative motion for execution to implement the decision and to order
partition of common properties.

On November 28, 2003, reiterative motion was heard in the absence of Reynolan and his counsel. RTC issued an
order approving the proposed project of partition. Clerk of court ordered to execute deeds of conveyance to
distribute 8 town house units.

On December 16, 2003, Reynolan moved to consider RTC’s order, prayed for its reversal, and reinstatement of the
order of reception of evidence before partition. Marywin opposed Reynolan’s motion on the ground that issues of
alleged fraudulent sale and non-accounting of rentals were already waived by Reynolan when he failed to set
them up as compulsory counterclaims in the case.

On April 12, 2004, RTC denied Reynolan’s motion for reconsideration. t ruled that reception of evidence is no
longer necessary because the parties were legally married prior to its nullification and the fact that they begot a
son whom they raised together proved that their connubial relations were more than merely transient.

On July 26, 2006, CA rules in favor of Reynolan and remanded the case to lower court for reception of evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA erred when it entertained respondent’s appeal from an order granting the issuance

of a writ of execution

RULING:

NO.

What is being questioned by respondent was not really the January 4, 2000 Decision of the RTC declaring their
marriage void ab initio on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity, but the Orders of the trial court dividing
their common properties in accordance with the proposed project of partition without the benefit of a hearing.
The issue on the validity of their marriage has long been settled in the main decision and may no longer be the
subject of review.

There were matters of genuine concern that had to be addressed prior to the dissolution of the property relations
of the parties as a result of the declaration of nullity of their marriage. Allegations regarding the collection of
rentals without proper accounting, sale of common properties without the husband’s consent and
misappropriation of the proceeds thereof, are factual issues which have to be addressed in order to determine
with certainty the fair and reasonable division and distribution of properties due to each party.

The extent of properties due to respondent is not yet discernible without further presentation of evidence on the
incidental matters he had previously raised before the RTC. Since the RTC resolved these matters in its Orders
dated November 28, 2003 and April 12, 2004, disregarding its previous order calling for the reception of evidence,
said orders became final orders as it finally disposes of the issues concerning the partition of the parties’ common
properties. As such, it may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the Court of Appeals via ordinary appeal

The decision of the CA is affirmed and the instant case is remanded to the lower court for further reception of
evidence.