Anda di halaman 1dari 3

TOPIC A.

Void Marriages
b. Causes
8. Non-compliance with Art. 52-53, FC; A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
CASE NAME Diño vs. Diño
CASE NUMBER G.R. No. 178044
DATE January 19, 2011
PONENTE Carpio

CASE PROPER

PARTIES Petitioner:
Alain M. Diño

Respondent:
Ma. Caridad L. Diño

NATURE Petition for review assailing the 18 October 2006 Decision and the 12 March 2007 Order
of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 254 (trial court) in Civil Case No. LP-
01-0149.

FACTS ANTECEDENTS
1. Petitioner and respondent were childhood sweethearts, lived together in 1984,
decided to separate in 1994, decided to live together again in 1996 and got married in
1998.
2. In 2001, petitioner filed action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against
respondent on the grounds of Art. 36 of the Family Code (PI). The petitioner alleged
the following:
 Respondent failed in her marital obligation to give love and support him;
 Abandoned her responsibility to her family and chose instead to go on shopping
sprees and gallivanting with her friends which depleted the family assets;
 Respondent was unfaithful, sometimes violent and hurt him
3. Respondent was already living in the US when the petition was filed, failed to answer
on the summons within the reglementary period, filed a petition for divorce in the US
which was granted, and got married to another man.
4. In 2002, collusion between the parties was ruled out by the Office of the Las Piñas
Prosecutor.
5. In a psychological report submitted by Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, it was established that
respondent was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was deeply
ingrained in her system since her early formative years and is incurable.

RTC DECISION
1. GRANTED (2006) the petition on the ground that respondent was psychologically
incapacitated based on the following premises:
 Evidence presented by petitioner able to establish respondent’s PI
 Even without the expert’s report, the allegations in the complaint substantiated in
the witness stand clearly establish PI

Diño vs. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011


 Respondent failed to discharge the essential marital obligations under Art. 68 of
the FC

DISPOSITIVE PORTION (2006)


WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring the marriage between plaintiff ALAIN M. DIÑO and defendant MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO on
January 14, 1998, and all its effects under the law, as NULL and VOID from the beginning; and
2. Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property.

A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall only be issued upon compliance with Article[s] 50 and
51 of the Family Code.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the parties, the Office of the Solicitor General, Office of the City
Prosecutor, Las Piñas City and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, for their information and
guidance.

SO ORDERED.

2. Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the dissolution of the
absolute community of property and the ruling that the decree of annulment shall
only be issued upon compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the FC.

3. Motion PARTIALLY GRANTED (2007) and modified its 2006 decision.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION (2007)


WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring the marriage between plaintiff ALAIN M. DIÑO and defendant MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO on
January 14, 1998, and all its effects under the law, as NULL and VOID from the beginning; and
2. Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property.

A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall be issued after liquidation, partition and distribution of
the parties' properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

Let copies of this Order be furnished the parties, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Las Piñas City and the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, for their information and guidance.

4. Thus the petition was brought before the SC.

ISSUE (s) Whether the trial court erred when it ordered that a decree of absolute nullity of
marriage shall only be issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties'
properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

HELD YES. The RTC erred in its order.

1. In Valdes vs. RTC, the Court ruled that in a void marriage, regardless of its cause, the
property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by
Article 147 or 148 of the FC. Article 147 of the FC applies to union of parties who are
legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but
whose marriage is nonetheless void, just like the parties in the case.

2. Section 19 (1) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) provides that a decree of nullity or

Diño vs. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011


decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Articles
50 and 51 of the FC. It is obvious therefore, that Section 19 (1) of the Rule does not
apply to Articles 147 and 148 of the FC.

3. It is clear in Article 50 of the FC that Section 19 (1) of the Rule applies only to
marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under
Articles 40 (bigamous) and Article 45 (voidable) of the FC. Therefore, Section 19 (1) of
the Rule does not apply to marriages which are declared void ab initio under Article
36 of the FC, as in the case, therefore a decree of nullity of marriage shall be issued
without waiting for the liquidation of the properties of the parties.

4. If marriage was declared void under Articles 40 and 45 of the FC, property relations
are governed by absolute community of property, conjugal partnership of gains, or a
complete separation of properties in a marriage settlement entered into before the
marriage. Therefore, there liquidation, partition and distribution of properties is
necessary before a decree of nullity or a decree of annulment is issued.

5. In the case, the parties’ marriage was declared void under Article 36 of the FC, the
rules on co-ownership apply and the properties of the spouses should be liquidated in
accordance with the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership. It is not necessary to
liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for declaration of
nullity of marriage.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION (2011)


WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the trial court with the MODIFICATION that the decree of absolute
nullity of the marriage shall be issued upon finality of the trial court's decision without waiting for the
liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties' properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

SO ORDERED.

Prepared by: Arnel A. Manalastas (Use at your own risk)

Diño vs. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011