Ocampo v.

Ocampo
G.R. No. 198908 Date 2015, August 03 Ponente J Peralta
Key Words: 50-50 sharing after psych incap.
Created By: Kristjan
Art 147
Topic: Property Regime of Unions without Marriage (After P.I. Nullity)

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
Virginia Ocampo Deogracio Ocampo

RECIT-READY SUMMARY

Beginning from September 10, 1990, proceedings started by Virginia Ocampo for the declaration of Nullity of her
Marriage with Deogracio ensued. Following the declaration of nullity on the grounds of psychological incapacity, a
hearing was conducted to settle the properties of the spouses in which the RTC and CA found a 50-50 sharing was
applicable in the case. The issue is whether or not Deogracio should be deprived of his share in the conjugal
partnership where the SC held that Art 147 is applicable in the current case as they meet all the requisites for its
application.

DOCTRINE
● 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. XXXXX
● SC direct quote on the article:
○ This particular kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no illegal
impediment to marry each other, exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void
marriage or without the benefit of marriage.
○ For Article 147 to operate, the man and the woman: (1) must be capacitated to marry each other;
(2) live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and (3) their union is without the benefit
of marriage or their marriage is void,

FACTS

January 16, 1978

● Virginia and Deogracio Ocampo got married (Before Family Code enactment, but Family Code laws will apply if
it does not prejudice the rights - Art. 105 FC)

September 10, 1990

● Virginia Ocampo filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of her Marriage with Deogracio Ocampo on the
ground of psychological incapacity
Jan 22, 1993
● Trial court declared the marriage null and void and said order became final

Mar 31, 1999

● The trial court told the parties to submit a partition of their inventoried properties and if they fail to do so, a
hearing on factual issues regarding the properties will be held.
● The couple did the latter

Jan 13 2004 onwards

● The trial court declared that the properties of the parties belong to them on a 50-50 sharing
● Virginia’s notice of appeal was denied by the CA

● It is still the Family Code provisions on conjugal partnerships, however, which will govern the property relations
between Deogracio and Virginia even if they were married before the effectivity of the Family Code.
● Article 105 of the Family Code explicitly mandates that the Family Code shall apply to conjugal partnerships
established before the Family Code without prejudice to vested rights already acquired under the Civil Code or
other laws.
● Thus, under the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during the marriage, the presumption is that they
are conjugal. Hence, the burden of proof is on the party claiming that they are not conjugal.

ISSUES-HELD-RATIO

W/N Deogracio should be deprived of his share in the conjugal partnership of gains by reason of bad
faith and psychological perversity. → No ( 147 applicable in this case)

● Applicable law in this case is Art 147 of the Family Code.

○ Their marriage follows the requisites for Art 147 to operate. Since psychological
incapacity declared their marriage null and void (Art 36 of the Family Code)
● More about Art 147,
○ Property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry should be governed
by the rules on equal co-ownership.
○ Thus any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been
obtained through their joint efforts.
● The SC held that the RTC and CA were correct in saying that the properties were acquired
during Virginia and Degracio’s marriage and while it was presumed active

W/N The Family Code Applies to them since they were married before its enactment→ Yes

● Art 105 of the Family Code makes it so conjugal partnership of gains established before the
Fam Code would still be governed by the latter without prejudice to vested rights already
acquired under the Civil Code or other laws

W/N The properties were duly proven to not be conjugal→ No

 ● All properties acquired by the spouses during the marriage, regardless in whose name the
properties are registered, are presumed conjugal unless proved otherwise.
○ The certificates of titles and tax declarations are not sufficient proof to overcome the
presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code.
○ Article 116 expressly provides that the presumption remains even if the property is
"registered in the name of one or both of the spouses."
● Virginia was unable to rebut this presumption, so the properties are considered conjugal
● Accordingly, the partition of the former spouses' properties on the basis of co-ownership, as
ordered by the RTC and the appellate court, should be affirmed, and not on the regime of
conjugal partnership of gains.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 11, 2010 and the Resolution
dated October 5, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 82318 are AFFIRMED. The case
is REMANDED to the trial court for proper disposition. SO ORDERED.

OTHER NOTES/IMPORTANT CONCEPTS

Justice [] - Dissenting Opinion

Justice [] - Separate Opinion

Justice [] - Concurring Opinion