Antonio VALDEZ v.

QC-RTC HELD
G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996
VITUG J. No. The Court correctly applied the law. In a void marriage, regardless of
the cause, the property relations of the parties during the period of
Principle: Effects of Final Judgment declaring nullity on the property cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, as
regime of the marriage. in this case. Under Art. 147, property acquired by both spouses through
their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
FACTS
Valdez and Gomez owned the “family home” and all their common
1. January 5, 1971: Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez got married. They property in equal shares. Thus, in the liquidation and partition of the
have 5 children. property owned by them in common, the provisions on co-ownership under
the Civil Code should prevail.
2. June 22, 1992: Valdez sought the declaration of nullity of marriage
pursuant to Article 36 of the FC, mutual psychological incapacity, which
the trial court granted.
It directed both parties to start proceedings on the liquidation of their
common properties.

3. Gomez asserted that the Family Code contained no provisions on the

procedure for the liquidation of common property in “unions wihout
marriage”.

4. About the issue re disposition of the family dwelling, RTC said: “the
property regime of Valdez and Gomez shall be governed by the rules on
ownership”. Article 102 and 129 of the FC cannot be applied.
[Article 102: procedure for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership
property.
Article 129: procedure for the liquidation of the absolute community of
property.]

5. Valdez submits that Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the FC should be held

controlling.

ISSUE

Whether or not Article 147 of the Family Code does not apply to cases
where the parties are psychologically incapacitated.