Salas, Jr. vs Aguila, G.R. No.

202370
Sept. 23, 2013
CARPIO, J.
Unions under FC 147, 4, 35, 36, 53, cf. NCC 144

Doctrine: Under this property regime, any property acquired during the
marriage is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through the
couple’s joint efforts and governed by the rules on co-ownership. In this
case, Salas did not rebut this presumption. In a similar case where the
ground for nullity of marriage was also psychological incapacity, the
court held that the properties acquired during the union of the parties,
as found by both the RTC and the CA, would be governed by co-
ownership. Accordingly, the partition of the Discovered Properties as
ordered by the RTC and the CA should be sustained, on the basis of co-
ownership and not on the regime of conjugal partnership of gains.

Facts:
• On September 7 1985, Juan Sevilla Salas Jr. and Eden Villena
Aguila were married. Aguila gave birth to their daughter on June 7
1986. Five months later, Salas left their conjugal dwelling. Since
then, he no longer communicated with Aguila or their child.

• On October 7, 2003, Aguila filed a Petition for Declaration of

Nullity of Marriage citing psychological incapacity under Article 36
of the Family Code. The petition states that they “have no conjugal
properties whatsoever”.

• On May 7, 2007, RTC nullify their marriage and further provides

the dissolution of their conjugal property, if any.

• On September 10, 2007, Aguila filed a manifestation and motion

stating that she discovered 3 properties registered to Juan S.
Salas, married to Rubina C. Salas. However, Salas alleged that
 Aguila waived her rights to the Discovered Properties in
consideration of other properties waived by Salas in favour of
Aguila. Thus, he contends that conjugal properties were deemed
partitioned.

• RTC directed Salas and Aguila to partition by proper instruments

of conveyance the discovered properties. CA affirmed the decision
of the RTC.

Issue: Whether or not the discovered properties acquired during the

marriage of Salas and Aguila were conjugal properties and subject for
partition.

Ruling
Yes, Aguila was able to prove that the Discovered Properties were
acquired by Salas during the validity of their marriage. The phrase
“married to” in the title is merely descriptive of the civil status of the
registered owner, Salas.

In Diño v. Diño, 640 SCRA 178 (2011), the court held that Article 147 of
the Family Code applies to the union of parties who are legally
capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but
whose marriage is nonetheless declared void under Article 36 of the
Family Code. Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the union of
parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to
contract marriage, but whose marriage is declared void under Article 36
of the Family Code. Under this property regime, property acquired
during marriage is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through
the couple’s joint efforts and governed by the rules of co-ownership.

Thus, showing that the Discovered Properties should be partitioned on

the basis of co-ownership.