In cases of marriages declared void due to psychological incapacity, the Supreme Court clarifies how property acquired during the union should be divided. The ruling emphasizes that the principle of co-ownership, not conjugal partnership, governs the division of assets. This means that properties acquired through the joint efforts of both parties are generally owned in equal shares, irrespective of whose name appears on the title. This decision underscores the importance of proving individual contributions to acquired properties and highlights the equal value of household contributions in void marriages.

Love Gone Wrong: Untangling Property Rights After a Void Marriage

Virginia and Deogracio Ocampo entered into marriage on January 16, 1978. Their union, however, was later declared void due to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Following the annulment, a dispute arose regarding the division of their properties acquired during the marriage. Virginia argued that Deogracio should be deprived of his share in the conjugal partnership due to bad faith and psychological perversity. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the principles of conjugal partnership or co-ownership should govern the division of properties in this void marriage.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on the Family Code provisions regarding conjugal partnerships and co-ownership in void marriages. Even though the couple married before the Family Code’s effectivity, the Court emphasized that the Family Code applies to conjugal partnerships established before its enactment, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired under the Civil Code or other laws. Thus, the properties acquired during the marriage are presumed conjugal, placing the burden of proof on the party claiming otherwise.

However, the pivotal point of the decision lies in determining the applicable law for liquidating assets and liabilities. The Court clarified that Article 129 of the Family Code, typically used for conjugal partnerships, is not relevant here. Instead, Article 147 of the Family Code governs property relations in void marriages where both parties are capacitated to marry each other. Article 147 states:

Article 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

This provision establishes a regime of co-ownership, where properties acquired during the union are presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts. Even if one party did not directly contribute financially, their efforts in caring for the family and household are considered a contribution to the acquisition of common property.

The Court emphasized that for Article 147 to apply, the man and woman must be capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively as husband and wife, and their union must be without the benefit of marriage or be void. In this case, while Virginia and Deogracio’s marriage was void due to psychological incapacity, no legal impediment prevented them from marrying each other. The Court further highlighted the presumption that properties acquired during the union are the result of joint efforts.

Acknowledging the difficulty in proving the extent of each party’s contribution, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decision to divide the properties equally. Virginia failed to present sufficient evidence proving that the properties were acquired solely through her efforts. The Court emphasized that even if Virginia actively managed the businesses, Deogracio’s support and contributions as a husband and father could not be dismissed. The Court cited the principle that a homemaker is entitled to an equal share in properties acquired during the marriage, recognizing the value of their contributions to the family.

Furthermore, the Court reiterated that properties acquired during the marriage are presumed conjugal, regardless of whose name appears on the title. This presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, Virginia failed to rebut this presumption, leading the Court to conclude that the properties were obtained through the spouses’ joint efforts and should be owned in equal shares.

The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the division of properties in void marriages under Article 36 of the Family Code. It underscores the importance of proving individual contributions to acquired properties and recognizes the equal value of household contributions. The ruling serves as a reminder that in the absence of clear evidence, properties acquired during the union will be divided equally between the parties based on the principle of co-ownership.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The main issue was whether the properties acquired during the void marriage of Virginia and Deogracio should be divided based on the rules of conjugal partnership or co-ownership.
What is psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code?	Psychological incapacity refers to a party’s inability to comply with the essential marital obligations due to a grave and incurable psychological condition that existed at the time of the marriage.
What is the difference between conjugal partnership and co-ownership?	Conjugal partnership applies to valid marriages and involves the sharing of profits from properties acquired during the marriage, while co-ownership applies to void marriages and involves the equal sharing of properties acquired through joint efforts.
What does Article 147 of the Family Code provide?	Article 147 governs the property relations of couples in void marriages who are capacitated to marry each other, stating that their wages and properties acquired through joint efforts are owned in equal shares.
How are properties divided in a void marriage under Article 147?	Properties are presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts and are owned in equal shares, even if one party primarily cared for the family and household.
Who has the burden of proof in establishing ownership of properties?	The party claiming that a property is not jointly owned has the burden of proving that it was acquired solely through their efforts.
Does the name on the property title determine ownership?	No, the fact that a property is registered in the name of only one spouse does not automatically mean it is their exclusive property. Properties acquired during the marriage are presumed conjugal.
What happens if one party acted in bad faith?	If one party is in bad faith, their share in the co-ownership may be forfeited in favor of the common children.
What evidence is needed to prove sole ownership of property?	Clear and convincing evidence, such as documentary proof of exclusive funds used for acquisition, is required to overcome the presumption of co-ownership.

This case clarifies the property rights of couples in void marriages, emphasizing the application of co-ownership principles under Article 147 of the Family Code. It highlights the importance of proving individual contributions to acquired properties and recognizes the equal value of household contributions in the absence of such proof. The Supreme Court’s decision provides a clear framework for dividing assets in these situations, ensuring a fair and equitable outcome for both parties.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Virginia Ocampo v. Deogracio Ocampo, G.R. No. 198908, August 3, 2015