No.

A. Doctrine:

Petitioner and the respondent tied the marital knot on January 6, 1977. Since at the
time of the exchange of marital vows, the operative law was the Civil Code of the
Philippines (R.A. No. 386) and since they did not agree on a marriage settlement, the
property relations between the petitioner and the respondent is the system of relative
community or conjugal partnership of gains.

Thus, from the foregoing facts and law, it is clear that what governs the property
relations of the petitioner and of the respondent is conjugal partnership of gains. And
under this property relation, "the husband and the wife place in a common fund the
fruits of their separate property and the income from their work or industry." The
husband and wife also own in common all the property of the conjugal partnership of
gains.

Second, since at the time of the dissolution of the petitioner and the respondent's
marriage the operative law is already the Family Code, the same applies in the instant
case and the applicable law in so far as the liquidation of the conjugal partnership
assets and liabilities is concerned is Article 129 of the Family Code in relation to Article
63(2) of the Family Code. The latter provision is applicable because according to Article
256 of the Family Code "[t]his Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other
law."

(IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 4 OF THE CIVIL CODE: Laws shall have no retroactive
effect, unless the contrary is provided.)

Baka itanong during recit"NET PROFIT EARNED"the definition of "net profits" in Article
102(4) of the Family Code applies to both the absolute community regime and conjugal
partnership regime as provided for under Article 63, No. (2) of the Family Code, relative
to the provisions on Legal Separation.

Applying Article 102 of the Family Code, the "net profits" requires that we first find the
market value of the properties at the time of the community's dissolution. From the
totality of the market value of all the properties, we subtract the debts and obligations of
the absolute community and this result to the net assets or net remainder of the
properties of the absolute community, from which we deduct the market value of the
properties at the time of marriage, which then results to the net profits.

B. Case Title: Brigido B. Quiao vs. Rita C. Quiao et al., G.R. No. 176556 (J. Reyes)
(04 July 2012)
 C. Facts:

Rita C. Quiao (Rita) filed a complaint for legal separation against petitioner Brigido B.
Quiao (Brigido). RTC rendered a decision declaring the legal separation thereby
awarding the custody of their 3 minor children in favor of Rita and all remaining
properties shall be divided equally between the spouses subject to the respective
legitimes of the children and the payment of the unpaid conjugal liabilities.

Brigido’s share, however, of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership is

forfeited in favor of the common children because Brigido is the offending spouse.

Neither party filed a motion for reconsideration and appeal within the period 270 days
later or after more than nine months from the promulgation of the Decision, the
petitioner filed before the RTC a Motion for Clarification, asking the RTC to define the
term “Net Profits Earned.”

RTC held that the phrase “NET PROFIT EARNED” denotes “the remainder of the
properties of the parties after deducting the separate properties of each [of the] spouse
and the debts.” It further held that after determining the remainder of the properties, it
shall be forfeited in favor of the common children because the offending spouse does
not have any right to any share of the net profits earned, pursuant to Articles 63, No. (2)
and 43, No. (2) of the Family Code.

Not satisfied with the trial court's Order, the petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsiderationon September 8, 2006. Consequently, the RTC issued another
Order dated November 8, 2006, holding that although the Decision dated October 10,
2005 has become final and executory, it may still consider the Motion for Clarification
because the petitioner simply wanted to clarify the meaning of "net profit
earned."Furthermore, the same Order held:

ALL TOLD, the Court Order dated August 31, 2006 is hereby ordered set aside. NET
PROFIT EARNED, which is subject of forfeiture in favor of [the] parties' common
children, is ordered to be computed in accordance [with] par. 4 of Article 102 of the
Family Code.

On November 21, 2006, the respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration,praying for
the correction and reversal of the Order dated November 8, 2006. Thereafter, on
January 8, 2007,the trial court had changed its ruling again and granted the
respondents' Motion for Reconsideration whereby the Order dated November 8, 2006
was set aside to reinstate the Order dated August 31, 2006.

Not satisfied with the trial court's Order, the petitioner filed on February 27, 2007 this
instant Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
 D. Issue/s: WHAT LAW GOVERNS THE PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN
THE HUSBAND AND WIFE WHO GOT MARRIED IN 1977? CAN THE FAMILY
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT FOR
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE NET PROFITS SUBJECT OF
FORFEITURE AS A RESULT OF THE DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION
WITHOUT IMPAIRING VESTED RIGHTS ALREADY ACQUIRED UNDER THE
CIVIL CODE?

E. Held:

First, since the spouses were married prior to the promulgation of the current family
code, the default rule is that In the absence of marriage settlements, or when the same
are void, the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains as
established in this Code, shall govern the property relations between husband and wife.

Second, since at the time of the dissolution of the spouses’ marriage the operative law
is already the Family Code, the same applies in the instant case and the applicable law
in so far as the liquidation of the conjugal partnership assets and liabilities is concerned
is Article 129 of the Family Code in relation to Article 63(2) of the Family Code.

The petitioner is saying that since the property relations between the spouses is
governed by the regime of Conjugal Partnership of Gains under the Civil Code, the
petitioner acquired vested rights over half of the properties of the ConjugalPartnership
of Gains, pursuant to Article 143 of the Civil Code, which provides: “All property of
the conjugal partnership of gains is owned in common by the husband and wife.”

While one may not be deprived of his “vested right,” he may lose the same if there is
due process and such deprivation is founded in law and jurisprudence.

In the present case, the petitioner was accorded his right to due process.  First, he was
well-aware that the respondent prayed in her complaint that all of the conjugalproperties
be awarded to her. In fact, in his Answer, the petitioner prayed that the trial court divide
the community assets between the petitioner and the respondent as circumstances and
evidence warrant after the accounting and inventory of all the community properties of
the parties. Second, when the decision for legal separation was promulgated, the
petitioner never questioned the trial court’s ruling forfeiting what the trial court termed as
“net profits,” pursuant to Article 129(7) of the Family Code. Thus, the petitioner cannot
claim being deprived of his right to due process.

When a couple enters into a regime of absolute community, the husband and the wife
become joint owners of all the properties of the marriage. Whatever property each
spouse brings into the marriage, and those acquired during the marriage (except those
excluded under Article 92 of the Family Code) form the common mass of the couple’s
properties. And when the couple’s marriage or community is dissolved, that common
mass is divided between the spouses, or their respective heirs, equally or in the
proportion the parties have established, irrespective of the value each one may have
originally owned.

In this case, assuming arguendo that Art 102 is applicable, since it has been
established that the spouses have no separate properties, what will be divided equally
between them is simply the “net profits.” And since the legal separation½share decision
of Brigido states that the in the net profits shall be awarded to the children, Brigido will
still be left with nothing.

On the other hand, when a couple enters into a regime of conjugal partnership of

gains under Article142 of the Civil Code, “the husband and the wife place in
common fund the fruits of their separate property and income from their work or
industry, and divide equally, upon the dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership,
the net gains or benefits obtained indiscriminately by either spouse during the
marriage.” From the foregoing provision, each of the couple has his and her own
property and debts. The law does not intend to effect a mixture or merger of those debts
or properties between the spouses. Rather, it establishes a complete separation
of capitals.

In the instant case, since it was already established by the trial court that the
spouses have no separate properties, there is nothing to return to any of them.
The listed properties above are considered part of the conjugal partnership. Thus,
ordinarily, what remains in the above-listed properties should be divided equally
between the spouses and/or their respective heirs. However, since the trial court found
the petitioner the guilty party, his share from the net profits of the conjugalpartnership is
forfeited in favor of the common children, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Family Code.
Again, lest we be confused, like in the absolute community regime, nothing will be
returned to the guilty party in the conjugal partnership regime, because there is no
separate property which may be accounted for in the guilty party’s favor.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 10, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 1 of Butuan City is AFFIRMED. Acting on the Motion for Clarification dated July
7, 2006 in the Regional Trial Court, the Order dated January 8, 2007 of the Regional
Trial Court is hereby CLARIFIED in accordance with the above discussions.