II.

Legal Separation (Articles 55-67, Family Code)

7. Siochi v. Gozon, G.R. No. 169900, 169977, March 18, 2010

Facts:

In 1991, Elvira filed with the RTC Cavite a legal separation against her
husband Alfredo. Elvira filed a notice of lis pendens, which was then annotated on
TCT No. 5357. While the case is pending, Alfredo and Mario Siochi (Mario)
entered into an Agreement to Buy and Sell the said property for Php18 million.
Consequently, RTC Cavite then rendered its decision which the conjugal
partnership of gains of the spouses is declared DISSOLVED and LIQUIDATED.
Being the offending spouse, respondent is deprived of his share in the net profits
and the same is awarded to their child Winifred R. Gozon whose custody is
awarded to petitioner. As regards the property, RTC Cavite held that it is deemed
conjugal property. In 1994, Alfredo executed a Deed of Donation over the
property in favor of their daughter, Winifred. Alfredo, by virtue of a SPA executed
in his favor by Winifred, sold the property to IDRI for ₱18 million. Thus, Mario
filed a complaint for specific performance to the RTC Malabon which the court
decided in his favor and decreed that the Agreement to Buy and Sell is approved,
the deed of donation and sale involving IDRI are null and void. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the Malabon RTC’s decision with modification declaring that Defendant
Alfredo Gozon’s one-half (½) undivided share has been forfeited in favor of his
daughter, Winifred Gozon, by virtue of the decision in the legal separation case
rendered by the RTC Cavite.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA is correct in declaring that Alfredo has been forfeited
of the ½ undivided share of the said property.

Ruling:

No, the CA is not correct.

Art. 63 of the Family Code provides in part, “The decree of legal separation
shall have the following effects: x x x x (2) The absolute community or the
conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse
shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute community
or the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in accordance with the
provisions of Article 43(2); x x x x”

Art. 43, supra provides in part, “The termination of the subsequent marriage
referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following effects: x x x (2)
The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case may
be, shall be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse contracted said marriage
in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property or
conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common
children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous
marriage or, in default of children, the innocent spouse; x x x”

Thus, among the effects of the decree of legal separation is that the conjugal
partnership is dissolved and liquidated and the offending spouse would have no
right to any share of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership. It is only
Alfredo’s share in the net profits which is forfeited in favor of Winifred.

Article 102(4) of the Family Code provides that "[f]or purposes of

computing the net profits subject to forfeiture in accordance with Article 43, No.
(2) and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall be the increase in value between the
market value of the community property at the time of the celebration of the
marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution."

Clearly, what is forfeited in favor of Winifred is not Alfredo’s share in the

conjugal partnership property but merely in the net profits of the conjugal
partnership property.
8. Maquilan v. Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007

Facts:
Petitioner and respondent are spouses. When petitioner discovered that
private respondent was having illicit sexual affair with her paramour, petitioner
filed a case of adultery against private respondent and the latter’s paramour. They
were convicted for the crime charged. Thereafter, in 2001, private respondent filed
a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Dissolution and Liquidation of
Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Damages imputing psychological incapacity on
the part of the petitioner. During the pre-trial of the said case, petitioner and
private respondent entered into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT that settled
partially the conjugal partnership of gains. The said Compromise Agreement was
given judicial imprimatur. However, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion praying
for the repudiation of the Compromise Agreement contending among others that
the respondent, having been convicted of adultery, is therefore disqualified from
sharing in the conjugal property. Moreover, the petitioner cites Article 2035 of the
Civil Code and argues that since adultery is a ground for legal separation, the
Compromise Agreement is therefore void.

Issue:
Whether or not a compromise agreement entered into by spouses valid and
legal

Ruling:

Yes.

Article 2035 of the Civil Code is inapplicable. The Compromise Agreement

partially divided the properties of the conjugal partnership of gains between the
parties and does not deal with the validity of a marriage or legal separation. It is
not among those that are expressly prohibited by Article 2035.

Moreover, the contention that the Compromise Agreement is tantamount to

a circumvention of the law prohibiting the guilty spouse from sharing in the
conjugal properties is misplaced. Existing law and jurisprudence do not impose
such disqualification.

Under Article 143 of the Family Code, separation of property may be

effected voluntarily or for sufficient cause, subject to judicial approval. The
questioned Compromise Agreement which was judicially approved is exactly such
a separation of property allowed under the law. This conclusion holds true even if
the proceedings for the declaration of nullity of marriage was still pending.
However, the Court must stress that this voluntary separation of property is subject
to the rights of all creditors of the conjugal partnership of gains and other persons
with pecuniary interest pursuant to Article 136 of the Family Code.
III. Rights and Obligations Between Husband and Wife (Articles 68-73, Family Code)

1. Goitia vs. Campos-Rueda, G.R. No. 11263, November 2, 1916,

35 Phil 252 (1916)

Facts:

2. Arroya vs. Vazquez de Arroyo, 42 Phil 54 (1921)

3. Illusorio v. Bildner, G.R. No. 139789 & 139808, 12 May 2000
4. Tenchavez v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, [November 29, 1965],
122 PHIL 752-776)
IV. Property Relations Between Husband and Wife (Articles 74-87, Family Code)
Cases:
1. Pana v. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., G.R. No. 164201, December 10, 2012
2. Valencia v. Locquiao, G.R. No. 122134, October 3, 2003
3. Matabuena v. Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, March 31, 1971
4. Arcaba v. Vda. de Batocael, G.R. No. 146683, November
22, 2001
5. Paterno v. Paterno, G.R. No. 213687, January 08, 2020

Module 4:

I. Absolute Community of Property (Articles 88-104,

Family Code)

Cases:
1. Nobleza v. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038, March 11, 2015
2. Flores v. Spouses Lindo, Jr., G.R. No. 183984, [April 13, 2011
3. De la Cruz v. De la Cruz, G.R.
No. L-19565, January 30, 1968