CASE  2011-0046: ROBINSONS GALLERIA/ ROBINSONS SUPERMARKET CORPORATION AND/OR JESS MANUEL VS. IRENE R. RANCHEZ (G.R. NO. 177937, 19 JANUARY 2011, NACHURA, J.) SUBJECTS: PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT; CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL; BACKWAGES. (BRIEF TITLE: ROBINSONS GALLERIA VS. RACHEZ)

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

 x————————————————————————————x

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

          Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision dated August 29, 2006 and the Resolution dated May 16, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91631.

The Facts

          The facts of the case are as follows.

          Respondent was a probationary employee of petitioner Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corporation (petitioner Supermarket) for a period of five (5) months, or from October 15, 1997 until March 14, 1998. She underwent six (6) weeks of training as a cashier before she was hired as such on October 15, 1997.

          Two weeks after she was hired, or on October 30, 1997, respondent reported to her supervisor the loss of cash amounting to Twenty Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Nine Pesos (P20,299.00) which she had placed inside the company locker. Petitioner Jess Manuel (petitioner Manuel), the Operations Manager of petitioner Supermarket, ordered that respondent be strip-searched by the company guards. However, the search on her and her personal belongings yielded nothing.

          Respondent acknowledged her responsibility and requested that she be allowed to settle and pay the lost amount. However, petitioner Manuel did not heed her request and instead reported the matter to the police. Petitioner Manuel likewise requested the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office for an inquest.

          On November 5, 1997, an information for Qualified Theft was filed with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court. Respondent was constrained to spend two weeks in jail for failure to immediately post bail in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00).

          On November 25, 1997, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages.

          On March 12, 1998, petitioners sent to respondent by mail a notice of termination and/or notice of expiration of probationary employment dated March 9, 1998.

          On August 10, 1998, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, the fallo of which reads:

            CONFORMABLY WITH THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the claim of illegal dismissal for lack of merit.

            Respondents are ordered to accept complainant to her former or equivalent work without prejudice to any action they may take in the premises in connection with the missing money of P20,299.00.

            SO ORDERED.

          In dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal, the Labor Arbiter ratiocinated that at the time respondent filed the complaint for illegal dismissal, she was not yet dismissed by petitioners. When she was strip- searched by the security personnel of petitioner Supermarket, the guards were merely conducting an investigation. The subsequent referral of the loss to the police authorities might be considered routine. Respondent’s non-reporting for work after her release from detention could be taken against her in the investigation that petitioner supermarket would conduct.

          On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter in a decision dated October 20, 2003. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

            WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is SET ASIDE.  The respondents are hereby ordered to immediately reinstate complainant to her former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and privileges and to pay her full backwages computed from the time she was constructively dismissed on October 30, 1997 up to the time she is actually reinstated.

            SO ORDERED.

          In reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC ruled that respondent was denied due process by petitioners. Strip-searching respondent and sending her to jail for two weeks certainly amounted to constructive dismissal because continued employment had been rendered impossible, unreasonable, and unlikely. The wedge that had been driven between the parties was impossible to ignore. Although respondent was only a probationary employee, the subsequent lapse of her probationary contract of employment did not have the effect of validly terminating her employment because constructive dismissal had already been effected earlier by petitioners.

          Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC in a resolution dated July 21, 2005.

          Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. On August 29, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

          WHEREFORE, premises considered, the challenged Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that should reinstatement be no longer possible in view of the strained relation between the parties, Petitioners are ordered to pay Respondent separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay in addition to backwages from the date of dismissal until the finality of the assailed decision.

            SO ORDERED.

          Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. However, the CA denied the same in a Resolution dated May 16, 2007.

          Hence, this petition.

          Petitioners assail the reinstatement of respondent, highlighting the fact that she was a probationary employee and that her probationary contract of employment lapsed on March 14, 1998. Thus, her reinstatement was rendered moot and academic. Furthermore, even if her probationary contract had not yet expired, the offense that she committed would nonetheless militate against her regularization.

On the other hand, respondent insists that she was constructively dismissed by petitioner Supermarket when she was strip-searched, divested of her dignity, and summarily thrown in jail. She could not have been expected to go back to work after being allowed to post bail because her continued employment had been rendered impossible, unreasonable, and unlikely. She stresses that, at the time the money was discovered missing, it was not with her but locked in the company locker. The company failed to provide its cashiers with strong locks and proper security in the work place. Respondent argues that she was not caught in the act and even reported that the money was missing. She claims that she was denied due process.

The Issue

          The sole issue for resolution is whether respondent was illegally terminated from employment by petitioners.

The Ruling of the Court

          We rule in the affirmative.

          There is probationary employment when the employee upon his engagement is made to undergo a trial period during which the employer determines his fitness to qualify for regular employment based on reasonable standards made known to him at the time of engagement.

          A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure.  However, in cases of probationary employment, aside from just or authorized causes of termination, an additional ground is provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code, i.e., the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of the engagement.  Thus, the services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following:  (1) a just or (2) an authorized cause; and  (3) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer. 

          Article 277(b) of the Labor Code mandates that subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal, except for just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of the same Code, the employer shall furnish the worker, whose employment is sought to be terminated, a written notice containing a statement  of the causes of termination, and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a representative if he so desires, in accordance with company rules and regulations pursuant to the guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment.

          In the instant case, based on the facts on record, petitioners failed to accord respondent substantive and procedural due process. The haphazard manner in the investigation of the missing cash, which was left to the determination of the police authorities and the Prosecutor’s Office, left respondent with no choice but to cry foul.  Administrative investigation was not conducted by petitioner Supermarket.  On the same day that the missing money was reported by respondent to her immediate superior, the company already pre-judged her guilt without proper investigation, and instantly reported her to the police as the suspected thief, which resulted in her languishing in jail for two weeks.  

          As correctly pointed out by the NLRC, the due process requirements under the Labor Code are mandatory and may not be supplanted by police investigation or court proceedings. The criminal aspect of the case is considered independent of the administrative aspect. Thus, employers should not rely solely on the findings of the Prosecutor’s Office. They are mandated to conduct their own separate investigation, and to accord the employee every opportunity to defend himself.  Furthermore, respondent was not represented by counsel when she was strip-searched inside the company premises or during the police investigation, and in the preliminary investigation before the Prosecutor’s Office.

          Respondent was constructively dismissed by petitioner Supermarket effective October 30, 1997. It was unreasonable for petitioners to charge her with abandonment for not reporting for work upon her release in jail. It would be the height of callousness to expect her to return to work after suffering in jail for two weeks. Work had been rendered unreasonable, unlikely, and definitely impossible, considering the treatment that was accorded respondent by petitioners.

          As to respondent’s monetary claims, Article 279 of the Labor Code provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. However, due to the strained relations of the parties, the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement, when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable.  On the one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment.  On the other, the payment releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.

           Thus, as an illegally or constructively dismissed employee, respondent is entitled to: (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable; and (2) backwages. These two reliefs are separate and distinct from each other and are awarded conjunctively.

 In this case, since respondent was a probationary employee at the time she was constructively dismissed by petitioners, she is entitled to separation pay and backwages. Reinstatement of respondent is no longer viable considering the circumstances.

          However, the backwages that should be awarded to respondent shall be reckoned from the time of her constructive dismissal until the date of the termination of her employment, i.e., from October 30, 1997 to March 14, 1998.  The computation should not cover the entire period from the time her compensation was withheld up to the time of her actual reinstatement. This is because respondent was a probationary employee, and the lapse of her probationary employment without her appointment as a regular employee of petitioner Supermarket effectively severed the employer-employee relationship between the parties. 

          In all cases involving employees engaged on probationary basis, the employer shall make known to its employees the standards under which they will qualify as regular employees at the time of their engagement. Where no standards are made known to an employee at the time, he shall be deemed a regular employee, unless the job is self-descriptive, like maid, cook, driver, or messenger.  However, the constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor is not intended to oppress or destroy management. Naturally, petitioner Supermarket cannot be expected to retain respondent as a regular employee considering that she lost P20,299.00  while acting as a cashier during the probationary period. The rules on probationary employment should not be used to exculpate a probationary employee who acts in a manner contrary to basic knowledge and common sense, in regard to which, there is no need to spell out a policy or standard to be met.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91631 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioners are hereby ordered to pay respondent Irene R. Ranchez separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay and backwages from October 30, 1997 to March 14, 1998.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

                                       ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

                                      Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N

          I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

                                      ANTONIO T. CARPIO

                                      Associate Justice

                                      Chairperson, Second Division

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

          Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

                                      RENATO C. CORONA

                                      Chief Justice

*               In lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Raffle dated July 6, 2009.

              Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, with Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring; rollo, pp. 67-75.

              Id. at  77-78.

              Labor Arbiter’s decision; CA rollo, p. 50.

              Id. at 47.

              Id. at 48.

              Labor Arbiter’s decision, id.; NLRC decision, id. at 67; CA Decision, rollo, p. 68.

              Labor Arbiter’s decision, CA rollo, p. 48; NLRC decision, CA rollo, p. 70; CA Decision, rollo, p. 68.

              CA Decision; rollo, p. 69.

              CA Decision, id. at 68; NLRC decision, CA rollo, p. 67.

            Penned by Labor Arbiter Melquiades Sol D. del Rosario; CA rollo, pp. 47-53.

            Id. at 52-53.

            Labor Arbiter’s decision; id. at 51-52.

            Penned by Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Presiding Commissioner Roy V. Señeres and Commissioner Romeo L. Go, concurring; id. at 65-72.

            Id. at 71.

            Id. at 69.

            Id. at 70.

            Penned by Commissioner Proculo T. Sarmen, with the concurrence of OIC, Office of the Chairman Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Romeo L. Go; id. at 86-88.

            Rollo, p. 74.

            CA Decision, id. at 68-69; NLRC decision, CA rollo, p. 67.

            CA Decision, rollo, p. 68; NLRC decision, CA rollo, p. 67.

            Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 6.

            Id.

            Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 6(c).

            Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. v. Daniel, 499 Phil. 491, 511 (2005).   

            Siemens v. Domingo, G.R. No. 150488, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 86, 100.

            Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 6(d).

            Capili v. National Labor Relations Commission, 337 Phil. 210, 216 (1997).

            Aberdeen Court, Inc. v. Agustin, Jr., 495 Phil. 706, 716-717 (2005).

CASE 2011-0044:  PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK VS. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ARMANDO SIMBILLO, CHRISTIAN MARCELO, ROLANDO DAVID, RICARDO BUCUD, PABLO SANTOS, AGRIFINA ENRIQUEZ, CONRADO ESPELETA, CATGERUBE CASTRO, CARLITO MERCADO   AND ALFREDO SUAREZ (G.R. NO. 173085, 19 JANUARY 2011, ABAD, J.)  SUBJECTS: EXPROPRIATION, INTERVENTION IN EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS. (BRIEF TITLE: PVB VS. BCDA ET AL.)   

x ——————————————————————————- x

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

This case is about the authority of the court in an expropriation case to adjudicate questions of ownership of the subject properties where such questions involve the determination of the validity of the issuance to the defendants of Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs), questions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

The Facts and the Case

In late 2003 respondent Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), a government corporation, filed several expropriation actions before the various branches of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, for acquisition of lands needed for the construction of the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway Project.  Ten of these cases were raffled to Branch 58 of the court and it is these that are the concern of the present petition.

The defendants in Branch 58 cases were respondents Armando Simbillo, Christian Marcelo, Rolando David, Ricardo Bucud, Pablo Santos, Agrifina Enriquez, Conrado Espeleta, Catgerube Castro, Carlito Mercado, and Alfredo Suarez.  They were the registered owners of the expropriated lands that they acquired as beneficiaries of the comprehensive agrarian reform program.  Another defendant was Land Bank of the Philippines, the mortgagee of the lands by virtue of the loans it extended for their acquisition.  The lands in these cases were located in Porac and Floridablanca, Pampanga.

On learning of the expropriation cases before Branch 58, petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) filed motions to intervene in all the cases with attached complaints-in-intervention, a remedy that it adopted in similar cases with the other branches.  PVB alleged that the covered properties actually belonged to Belmonte Agro-Industrial Development Corp. which mortgaged the lands to PVB in 1976.  PVB had since foreclosed on the mortgages and bought the same at public auction in 1982.  Unfortunately, the bank had been unable to consolidate ownership in its name. 

But, in its order of August 18, 2004, Branch 58 denied PVB’s motion for intervention on the ground that the intervention amounts to a third-party complaint that is not allowed in expropriation cases and that the intervention would delay the proceedings in the cases before it.  Besides, said Branch 58, PVB had a pending action for annulment of the titles issued to the individual defendants and this was pending before Branch 62 of the court.

PVB filed its motion for reconsideration but Branch 58 denied the same, prompting the bank to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).  On January 26, 2006 the CA rendered a decision, dismissing the petition for lack of merit.   It also denied in a resolution dated June 2, 2006 PVB’s motion for reconsideration.

Meanwhile, on April 3, 2006 Branch 58 issued separate decisions in all 10 cases before it, granting the expropriation of the subject properties.  The court noted the uncertainty as to the ownership of such properties but took no action to grant BCDA’s prayer in its complaint that it determine the question of ownership of the same pursuant to Section 9, Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Issue Presented

The issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in holding that PVB was not entitled to intervene in the expropriation cases before Branch 58 of the Angeles City RTC.

The Court’s Ruling

PVB maintains that in deciding the case, the RTC and the CA ignored Section 9, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes the court adjudicating the expropriation case to hear and decide conflicting claims regarding the ownership of the properties involved while the compensation for the expropriated property is in the meantime deposited with the court.  Section 9 provides:

Sec. 9. Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims. – If the ownership of the property taken is uncertain, or there are conflicting claims to any part thereof, the court may order any sum or sums awarded as compensation for the property to be paid to the court for the benefit of the person adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled thereto.  But the judgment shall require the payment of the sum or sums awarded to either the defendant or the court before the plaintiff can enter upon the property, or retain it for the public use or purpose if entry has already been made.

PVB’s point regarding the authority of the court in expropriation cases to hear and adjudicate conflicting claims over the ownership of the lands involved in such cases is valid.  But such rule obviously cannot apply to PVB for the following reasons:

1.       At the time PVB tried to intervene in the expropriation cases, its conflict with the farmer beneficiaries who held CLOAs, EPs, or TCTs emanating from such titles were already pending before Angeles City RTC Branch 62, a co-equal branch of the same court.  Branch 58 had no authority to pre-empt Branch 62 of its power to hear and adjudicate claims that were already pending before it. 

2.       Of course, subsequently, after the CA dismissed PVB’s petition on January 26, 2006, the latter filed a motion for reconsideration, pointing out that it had in the meantime already withdrawn the actions it filed with Branch 62 after learning from the decision of the Supreme Court in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Cuenca, that jurisdiction over cases involving the annulment of CLOAs and EPs were vested by Republic Act 6657 in the DARAB. 

PVB now points out that, since there was no longer any impediment in RTC Branch 58 taking cognizance of its motion for intervention and adjudicating the parties’ conflicting claims over the expropriated properties, the CA was in error in not reconsidering its decision. 

But PVB’s withdrawal of its actions from Branch 62 cannot give Branch 58 comfort.  As PVB itself insists, jurisdiction over the annulment of the individual defendants’ CLOAs and EPs (which titles if annulled would leave PVB’s titles to the lands unchallenged) lies with the DARAB.  Branch 58 would still have no power to adjudicate the issues of ownership presented by the PVB’s intervention.

Actually, PVB’s remedy was to secure an order from Branch 58 to have the proceeds of the expropriation deposited with that branch in the meantime, pending adjudication of the issues of ownership of the expropriated lands by the DARAB.  Section 9 above empowers the court to order payment to itself of the proceeds of the expropriation whenever questions of ownership are yet to be settled.  There is no reason why this rule should not be applied even where the settlement of such questions is to be made by another tribunal. 

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 26, 2006 and its resolution dated June 2, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP 88144.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD

                                                              Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA     DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

                  Associate Justice                                  Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

          I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

                                                      ANTONIO T. CARPIO

                                                   Associate Justice

                                Chairperson, Second Division                

CERTIFICATION

          Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

                                                             RENATO C. CORONA

                                                            Chief Justice

SCA 11214 entitled “BCDA v. Alfredo Suarez, et al.”; SCA 11229 entitled “BCDA v. Heirs of Enriquez, et al.”; SCA 11230 entitled “BCDA v. Cristian Marcelo, et al.”; SCA 11232 entitled “BCDA v. Catherine Castro, et al.”; SCA 11237 entitled “BCDA v. Pablo Santos, et al.”; SCA 11260 entitled “BCDA v. Ricardo Bucud, et al.”; SCA 11262 entitled “BCDA v. Rolando David”; SCA 11263 entitled “BCDA v. Armando Simbillo, et al.”; SCA 11264 entitled “BCDA v. Conrado Espeleta”; and SCA 11291 entitled “BCDA v. Carlito Mercado, et al.”

  Rollo, pp. 43-46.

  Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 88144.

Rollo, pp. 35-40; penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, and concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Lucenito N. Tagle.

 Id. at 42.

  Id. at 99, 104, 110, 116, 122, 127 and 132.

  482 Phil. 208, 216 (2004).

See also Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals, 501 Phil. 24, 34 (2005); Dao-ayan v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, G.R. No. 172109, August 29, 2007, 531 SCRA 620, 628.

CASE 2011-0045: ALAIN M. DIÑO VS. MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO (G.R. NO. 178044, 19 JANUARY 2011, CARPIO, J.) SUBJECT: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE CAN BE DONE EVEN PRIOR TO DISSOLUTION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTIES. (BRIEF SUBJECT: DINO VS. DINO).

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a petition for review¹ assailing the 18 October 2006 Decision² and the 12 March 2007 Order³ of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 254 (trial court) in Civil Case No. LP-01-0149.

The Antecedent Facts

Alain M. Diño (petitioner) and Ma. Caridad L. Diño (respondent) were childhood friends and sweethearts. They started living together in 1984 until they decided to separate in 1994. In 1996, petitioner and respondent decided to live together again. On 14 January 1998, they were married before Mayor Vergel Aguilar of Las Piñas City.

On 30 May 2001, petitioner filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against respondent, citing psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Petitioner alleged that respondent failed in her marital obligation to give love and support to him, and had abandoned her responsibility to the family, choosing instead to go on shopping sprees and gallivanting with her friends that depleted the family assets. Petitioner further alleged that respondent was not faithful, and would at times become violent and hurt him.

Extrajudicial service of summons was effected upon respondent who, at the time of the filing of the petition, was already living in the United States of America. Despite receipt of the summons, respondent did not file an answer to the petition within the reglementary period. Petitioner later learned that respondent filed a petition for divorce/dissolution of her marriage with petitioner, which was granted by the Superior Court of California on 25 May 2001. Petitioner also learned that on 5 October 2001, respondent married a certain Manuel V. Alcantara.

On 30 April 2002, the Office of the Las Piñas prosecutor found that there were no indicative facts of collusion between the parties and the case was set for trial on the merits.

Dr. Nedy L. Tayag (Dr. Tayag), a clinical psychologist, submitted a psychological report establishing that respondent was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was deeply ingrained in her system since her early formative years. Dr. Tayag found that respondent’s disorder was long-lasting and by nature, incurable.

In its 18 October 2006 Decision, the trial court granted the petition on the ground that respondent was psychologically incapacited to comply with the essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

The Decision of the Trial Court

The trial court ruled that based on the evidence presented, petitioner was able to establish respondent’s psychological incapacity. The trial court ruled that even without Dr. Tayag’s psychological report, the allegations in the complaint, substantiated in the witness stand, clearly made out a case of psychological incapacity against respondent. The trial court found that respondent committed acts which hurt and embarrassed petitioner and the rest of the family, and that respondent failed to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity required of her under Article 68 of the Family Code. The trial court also ruled that respondent abandoned petitioner when she obtained a divorce abroad and married another man.

The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

1.      Declaring the marriage between plaintiff ALAIN M. DIÑO and defendant MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO on January 14, 1998, and all its effects under the law, as NULL and VOID from the beginning; and

2.      Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property.

A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall only be issued upon compliance with Article[s] 50 and 51 of the Family Code.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the parties, the Office of the Solicitor General, Office of the City Prosecutor, Las Piñas City and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.⁴

Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the dissolution of the absolute community of property and the ruling that the decree of annulment shall only be issued upon compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code.

In its 12 March 2007 Order, the trial court partially granted the motion and modified its 18 October 2006 Decision as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

1) Declaring the marriage between plaintiff ALAIN M. DIÑO and defendant MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO on January 14, 1998, and all its effects under the law, as NULL and VOID from the beginning; and

2) Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property.

A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall be issued after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

Let copies of this Order be furnished the parties, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City and the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, for their information and guidance.⁵

Hence, the petition before this Court.

The Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court erred when it ordered that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

The Ruling of this Court

The petition has merit.

Petitioner assails the ruling of the trial court ordering that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. Petitioner argues that Section 19(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages⁶ (the Rule) does not apply to Article 147 of the Family Code.

We agree with petitioner.

The Court has ruled in Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City that in a void marriage, regardless of its cause, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.⁷ Article 147 of the Family Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void,⁸ such as petitioner and respondent in the case before the Court.

Article 147 of the Family Code provides:

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.

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.

For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following elements must be present:

1.      The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each other;

2.      They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and

3.      Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void.⁹

All these elements are present in this case and there is no question that Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the property relations between petitioner and respondent.

We agree with petitioner that the trial court erred in ordering that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall be issued only after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The ruling has no basis because Section 19(1) of the Rule does not apply to cases governed under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code. Section 19(1) of the Rule provides:

Sec. 19. Decision. – (1) If the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.

The pertinent provisions of the Family Code cited in Section 19(1) of the Rule are:

Article 50. The effects provided for in paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and in Article 44 shall also apply in proper cases to marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45.¹⁰

The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.

All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community of the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation.

In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129.

Article 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.

The children of their guardian, or the trustee of their property, may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.

The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either or both of the parents; but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime.

It is clear from Article 50 of the Family Code that Section 19(1) of the Rule applies only to marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45 of the Family Code. In short, Article 50 of the Family Code does not apply to marriages which are declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code, which should be declared void without waiting for the liquidation of the properties of the parties.

Article 40 of the Family Code contemplates a situation where a second or bigamous marriage was contracted. Under Article 40, “[t]he absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” Thus we ruled:

x x x where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law, for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity, is a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void.¹¹

Article 45 of the Family Code, on the other hand, refers to voidable marriages, meaning, marriages which are valid until they are set aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action for annulment.¹² In both instances under Articles 40 and 45, the marriages are governed either by absolute community of property¹³ or conjugal partnership of gains¹⁴ unless the parties agree to a complete separation of property in a marriage settlement entered into before the marriage. Since the property relations of the parties is governed by absolute community of property or conjugal partnership of gains, there is a need to liquidate, partition and distribute the properties before a decree of annulment could be issued. That is not the case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code because the marriage is governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership.

In this case, petitioner’s marriage to respondent was declared void under Article 36¹⁵ of the Family Code and not under Article 40 or 45. Thus, what governs the liquidation of properties owned in common by petitioner and respondent are the rules on co-ownership. In Valdes, the Court ruled that the property relations of parties in a void marriage during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.¹⁶ The rules on co-ownership apply and the properties of the spouses should be liquidated in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership. Under Article 496 of the Civil Code, “[p]artition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. x x x.” It is not necessary to liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for declaration of nullity of marriage.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the trial court with the MODIFICATION that the decree of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be issued upon finality of the trial court’s decision without waiting for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE C. MENDOZA

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

1Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2Rollo, pp. 28-34. Penned by Presiding Judge Gloria Butay Aglugub.

3Id. at 45-46.

4Id. at 34.

5Id. at 46.

6A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, effective 15 March 2003.

7328 Phil. 1289 (1996).

8Mercado-Fehr v. Bruno Fehr, 460 Phil. 445 (2003).

9Id.

10Article 43. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following effects:

(1) The children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall be considered legitimate and their custody and support in case of dispute shall be decided by the court in a proper proceeding;

(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;

(3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid, except that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith, such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law;

(4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in bad faith as a beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable; and

(5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession.

Article 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.

Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;

(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or

(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable.

11Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño, 403 Phil. 861 (2001).

12Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay, 360 Phil. 932 (1998).

13Article 88 of the Family Code.

14Article 105 of the Family Code.

15Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

16Supra note 7.