Key Takeaway: Understanding Property Division in Void Marriages

Simon R. Paterno v. Dina Marie Lomongo Paterno, G.R. No. 213687, January 08, 2020

Imagine waking up one day to find that the marriage you thought was valid has been declared null and void. Suddenly, the home you’ve shared and the assets you’ve built together are thrown into legal limbo. This was the reality for Simon and Dina Paterno, whose case before the Philippine Supreme Court sheds light on the complex issue of property division after a void marriage.

The Paterno case centers on the division of properties acquired during a marriage later declared void due to psychological incapacity. The key legal question was whether properties acquired after the couple’s de facto separation but before the final declaration of nullity should be considered part of the conjugal partnership.

Legal Context: Property Relations in Void Marriages

In the Philippines, the property relations of parties in a void marriage are governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code. These provisions aim to protect the rights of both parties and ensure a fair division of assets.

Article 147 applies when a man and a woman, who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively together under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage. Under this article, properties acquired during their cohabitation are presumed to be obtained through their joint efforts and owned in equal shares.

Article 148 governs situations where one or both parties are incapacitated to marry each other, such as when there’s a legal impediment. Here, the property regime is more restrictive, and only properties acquired by both through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions.

The term “acquired” is crucial. As the Supreme Court noted, “For as long as the property had been purchased, whether on installment, financing or other mode of payment, during the period of cohabitation, the disputable presumption that they have been obtained by the parties’ joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares, shall arise.”

Consider a couple who buys a house together during their marriage but continues to pay for it after they separate. If their marriage is later declared void, the house’s ownership could be contested. The Paterno case clarifies that the property’s acquisition date, not the completion of payment, determines its status under the law.

Case Breakdown: The Paterno’s Journey Through the Courts

Simon and Dina Paterno were married in 1987 but separated in 1998. In 2000, Simon filed for the declaration of nullity of their marriage, which was granted in 2005 on grounds of mutual psychological incapacity. The couple owned several properties, including a house in Ayala Alabang and a condominium in Rockwell, which were purchased during their marriage but still being paid for after their separation.

The legal battle began when Dina sought a partial distribution of her share in the conjugal partnership and an increase in monthly support. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted her motion, ordering the partial delivery of her share and increasing the support to P250,000.00 monthly. Simon appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the RTC’s decision.

Simon then brought the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the properties paid for after their separation should not be part of the co-ownership. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating, “The term ‘acquired’ must be taken in its ordinary acceptation. For as long as the property had been purchased, whether on installment, financing or other mode of payment, during the period of cohabitation, the disputable presumption that they have been obtained by the parties’ joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares, shall arise.”

The Court further clarified that the presumption of equal sharing could be rebutted if Simon could prove that the properties were not obtained through their joint efforts. It emphasized, “The petitioner may rebut the presumption by presenting proof that the properties, although acquired during the period of their cohabitation, were not obtained through their joint efforts, work and industry.”

On the issue of support, the Court ruled that the increase was improper since two of their daughters had reached the age of majority and Dina no longer had the authority to claim support on their behalf. The Court stated, “If such is the case, respondent ceased to have the authority to claim support in their behalf. In increasing the amount of support due from petitioner based on the needs of all three children, the RTC gravely abused its discretion.”

Practical Implications: Navigating Property Division and Support

The Paterno case provides crucial guidance for couples whose marriages are declared void. It clarifies that properties purchased during the marriage, even if still being paid for after separation, are presumed to be co-owned. This ruling can impact how couples approach property division in similar situations.

For individuals going through a similar legal battle, it’s essential to gather evidence of contributions to property acquisition. If one party can prove that they solely funded the property after separation, they might be able to claim a larger share.

Regarding support, the case highlights the importance of assessing the needs of minor children and the authority of the custodial parent to claim support on their behalf. As circumstances change, such as children reaching the age of majority, support obligations may need to be adjusted.

Key Lessons:

• Properties acquired during marriage, even if still being paid for after separation, are presumed to be co-owned.
• The presumption of equal sharing can be rebutted with evidence of sole contribution.
• Support obligations must be reassessed as children reach the age of majority.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens to properties bought during a marriage that is later declared void?
Properties purchased during the marriage are presumed to be co-owned, even if payments continue after separation.

Can the presumption of equal sharing be challenged?
Yes, if one party can prove that they solely funded the property after separation, they may claim a larger share.

How does a void marriage affect support obligations?
Support obligations end between spouses upon the final decree of nullity, but continue for minor children.

What should I do if my marriage is declared void and we own properties together?
Seek legal advice to assess your contributions to the properties and negotiate a fair division.

Can support be adjusted after a child reaches the age of majority?
Yes, support obligations should be reassessed as children reach adulthood.

ASG Law specializes in family law and property disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.