Sollano v. Zaide-Sollano, G.R. No. 246794, Dec.

2, 2021

PETITIONER: Jose  Sollano

RESPONDENT: Ma. Rosario  Zaide-Sollano:"

FACTS:

 Petitioner Jose Sollano and respondent Ma. Rosario Zaide-Sollano are married but

have been living separately since 2006. They have three children named Hannah,
Michaella, and Jose. Their property relation is governed by the conjugal partnership
of gains. 
 Jose and Ma. Rosario engaged the services of Atty. Rita Linda V. Jimeno to help in
creating a compromise agreement for the dissolution and partition of their conjugal
assets and the to give their personal and real properties to their three children,
without court intervention.
 The parties agreed and signed the handwritten agreement denominated as
"Dissolution of Property and Support," witnessed by Atty. Jimeno and the couple's
son. The handwritten compromise agreement provides that the parties shall dissolve,
divide and partition their conjugal assets and provide legitime to their children as well
as pay their conjugal debt to LBC Bank and to Mr. Jack Garcia using their properties.
 The parties thereafter agreed to submit to Atty. Jimeno the appraisal, inventory, and
certificates of title covering the subject properties for purposes of facilitating their
disposal and implementation of their agreement. Jose, however, subsequently
refused to comply with the terms of the said agreement despite several demands
from Atty. Jimeno. 
 Jose's repeated non-compliance with the compromise agreement prompted
respondent to send him a demand letter, through Atty. Jimeno, insisting that
petitioner do his part in the execution of the terms of their mediated settlement, but
to no avail. 
 Ma. Rosario then filed a petition for Dissolution of Property & Support before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 107, Quezon City, for the enforcement of the
mediated settlement pursuant to Republic Act No. 9285  and A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC
otherwise known as "Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution." 
 The trial court ordered the enforcement of the compromise agreement between
petitioner and respondent and held that the agreement entered between the parties
before the mediator selected by the parties to settle their disputes is valid and
binding to the parties.
 Jose moved for reconsideration three days later but both the motions for execution
and reconsideration were denied. According to the trial court, the motion for
execution was prematurely filed since petitioner's motion for reconsideration had yet
to be resolved.
 On appeal, Jose argued that the compromise agreement, being one for the
dissolution and partition of conjugal assets, there must be a full trial and adjudication
by a court of law before any of its terms may be implemented. Also, its enforcement
cannot be ordered following a mere summary proceeding since the requisite
 procedure intended for the protection of third parties, the spouses' children, and even
the spouses themselves was not complied with. 
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It held that the
compromise agreement complied with the procedure laid down under Section 23 of
RA 876 and Rule 15 of A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC. The CA held that the compromise
agreement is valid since it did not provide for waiver of future support and future
legitime.
 Jose now seeks affirmative relief via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He challenges
anew the compromise agreement for being contrary to law, specifically Articles 126,
134, and 136 of the Family Code.

ISSUE: May the husband and wife validly enter into a compromise agreement dissolving their
property regime (NO)

RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 12, 2018 and
Resolution dated April 16, 2019 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
compromise agreement dated October 17, 2011 between petitioner JOSE SOLLANO and
respondent MA. ROSARIO ZAIDE-SOLLANO is void for violating Articles 134 and 136 of the
Family Code.

The respondent's: (1) manifestation with motion to admit comment/opposition is NOTED

and GRANTED; and (2) comment on the petition for review on certiorari is NOTED.

The respondent is hereby required to SUBMIT, within five (5) days from notice hereof, a soft
copy in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed manifestation with
motion to admit comment/opposition, pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.

RATIO:

 Under Article 134 of the Family Code, the separation of property between spouses
during the marriage shall not take place except by judicial order. Such judicial
separation of property may either be voluntary or for sufficient cause.
 In Toda, Jr.  v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the separation of property is not
effected by the mere execution of the contract or agreement of the parties, but by the
decree of the court approving the same. It, therefore, becomes effective only upon
judicial approval, without which it is void. Furthermore, Article 192 of said Code
explicitly provides that the conjugal partnership is dissolved only upon the issuance
of a decree of separation of property. 
 In addition, all creditors of the absolute community or of the conjugal partnership of
gains, as well as the personal creditors of the spouse, shall be listed in the petition
and notified of the filing thereof. Article 191 of the Civil Code underscores the need
for the court's intervention in voluntary dissolution of conjugal partnership for
purposes of safeguarding the interest of creditors and other third persons who may
be affected by the dissolution of the spouses' property regime
 In this case, there is no showing that the parties notified their conjugal creditors LBC
Bank and Mr. Jack Garcia of the voluntary dissolution of their property regime prior
to its execution. There was no way, therefore, that these creditors could have been
 able to protect their pecuniary interest against their debtor spouses. To be sure,
without judicial proceedings and notice to conjugal creditors, the spouses could
easily divide and dispose of their assets for their own personal benefit, and their
creditors would be left without any conjugal property to satisfy their monetary claims
against them.
 While the RTC-Branch 107, Quezon City, through its Decision dated June 8, 2015,
ordered the enforcement of the compromise agreement, the same does not equate
to the judicial order contemplated under Article 134 which would render the
compromise agreement in question valid, precisely because it failed to comply with
the requirements provided under Article 136.
 In conclusion, the spouses dissolved their property regime and partitioned their
conjugal assets without the requisite court intervention and without notifying their
creditors in violation of Sections 134 and 136 of the Family Code. The voluntary
dissolution of property regime by Jose and Ma. Rosario, perfected through the
assailed compromise agreement, is void. For the parties failed to comply with the
procedure set forth by the Family Code on voluntary dissolution of conjugal
partnership during the marriage.