Equal sharing

If a marriage has been declared null and void from the beginning, how will the couple divide the properties acquired before such declaration of nullity and while they were living together as husband and wife? This is the issue raised in this case of Gino and Gina.

Before their marriage was declared null and void, Gino and Gina begot three children and put up a family business which was being actively managed by Gina. As the business grew, their property holdings also grew mainly through the efforts of Gina. The growth of the business however had some adverse effects on their relationship especially because Gino did not help at all in the business operation. In fact Gina noticed that Gino would not like to assume any responsibility and preferred to spend his time with his barkadas. Gina thought that Gino was not only irresponsible but also an unfaithful husband.

So after more than 12 years of marriage, Gina filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of the psychological incapacity of Gino to perform his essential marital obligations.

After trial on the merits which lasted for about three years, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the marriage between Gina and Gino null and void from the beginning under Article 36 of the Family Code. The court likewise ruled that the status of the children shall remain legitimate and their custody awarded to Gina. The court likewise ordered the parties to submit a detailed and formal inventory of their conjugal properties for the purpose of liquidation within 30 days.  

 Meantime since neither Gina nor Gino appealed the judgment declaring their marriage null and void it became final. But with respect to the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the court set the case for hearing because they failed to agree on a project of partition of the inventoried properties acquired during their marriage.

During the hearing Gina testified and insisted that the properties were acquired solely through her own efforts and that Gino took no part in acquiring any of them. In fact she said that the seed money in their business was provided by her mother.  Thus, were it not for such seed money, the subject properties would not have been acquired. Besides, Gina testified that Gino was an irresponsible and unfaithful husband and family man. And so he should be deprived of his share in the conjugal partnership by reason of bad faith and psychological perversity.

But the RTC ruled against Gina and ordered that the subject properties they respectively declared as having been acquired during their marriage belong to each of them on a 50-50 sharing basis. The court said that the testimonial evidence submitted by Gina to prove her contention was self serving and insufficient in the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate them. Gina appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). But the CA denied her appeal and affirmed the order of partition issued by the RTC. Were the RTC and the CA correct?

Yes. The Supreme Court said that under the Family Code, if it is proven that the properties are acquired during the marriage they are presumed to be conjugal. The burden of proof is on the party claiming that they are not conjugal properties.  In this case, the former spouses substantially agree that they acquired the subject properties during the subsistence of their marriage. Hence both the RTC and the CA correctly found that they were in fact acquired during the marriage, and are thus presumed to be conjugal properties.  The burden is on Gina to overcome such presumption. But she was not able to do so because she only submitted testimonial evidence which is self-serving without any documentary evidence. In fact under Article 116 of the FC, the presumption remains even if the properties are registered in the name of one or both of the spouses.

Thus the failure of Gina to rebut this presumption means that the subject properties were obtained by the spouses’ joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be jointly owned by them in equal shares (Article 147 FC). Accordingly, the partition of subject properties on the basis of co-ownership as ordered by the RTC and sustained by the CA should be affirmed (Ocampo vs. Ocampo, G.R. 198908, August 3, 2015).

*      *      *

Our email address: [email protected]