G.R. No.

198908

Ocampo v. Ocampo

3 August 2015

Facts:

Virginia Sy Ocampo filed a petition to have her marriage to Deogracio Ocampo declared null
and void due to psychiatric incompetence. In 1993, the marriage was ruled invalid by the trial
court; nonetheless, the couple's children's custody was upheld. The parties were directed by the
court to provide a list of their marital assets for liquidation. A hearing on property ownership
resulted from the parties' inability to reach a consensus on a partition proposal. Deogracio filed a
move to dismiss the appeal in response to Virginia's Notice of Appeal. Virginia filed for review after
the trial court refused her request. On October 5, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution
rejecting Virginia's challenge.

Issue:

Whether the respondent's portion of the earnings from the marriage should be withheld
due to his poor faith and psychological perversity.

Ruling:

The petition is DENIED due to the lack of MERIT. Virginia and Deogracio's marriage was
governed by the Family Code provisions on conjugal partnerships, even if they were married before
the Family Code's effectivity. The presumption is that properties acquired during the marriage are
conjugal, and the burden of proof lies with the party claiming they are not conjugal. The applicable
law for liquidating conjugal partnership assets and liability is Article 129 of the Family Code. In a
void marriage, property relations are governed by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.
Property acquired during cohabitation is presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts,
work, or industry. The court held that the former spouses own the family home and all their
common property in equal shares, and that the provisions on co-ownership under the Civil Code
should prevail in the liquidation and partition of the property owned in common.

The petitioner's claim that seed money in a business was provided by her mother was
dismissed due to insufficient evidence. Both trial and appellate courts agreed that the properties
were acquired during Virginia and Deogracio's marriage. The court found that the properties were
acquired through joint efforts and industry, and should be jointly owned in equal shares. The
petition was denied, and the case is remanded to the trial court for proper disposition.