Indissoluble

This is another case in which respect for the sanctity of the marital union especially among Filipinos citizens is manifested. This is the case of Justo, a well known practicing lawyer.

Justo was a partner in a prestigious law firm and legally married to Gina with whom he had seven children. After almost two decades of marriage Justo and Gina opted to live apart from each other and to a separation of property. For this purpose, they signed a document wherein they agreed to live separately and to dissolve and liquidate their conjugal partnership of property (Agreement for Separation and Property Settlement).

A few months after their separation, Justo traveled abroad and obtained a divorce decree in a Latin American country. On the same day that he obtained the divorce decree, Justo contracted another marriage, this time to Nita, another Filipina. Thereafter Justo and Nita returned to the Philippines and lived together as husband and wife.

Upon his return, Justo resumed his law practice and organized a new law firm with him as the managing partner. Later on the law firm purchased a condominium unit where he had a share of 25/100. Thereafter, the law firm was dissolved and Justo again established his own law firm using his portion of the condominium unit as their law office. The said law firm lasted until the death of Justo about 20 years later. At the time of his death, Justo and Nita were separated for about ten years already.

After Justo’s death, his share in the condominium unit including the law-books, office furniture and equipment found therein were taken over by Gary, Justo’s son by his first marriage to Gina. Gary then leased out the 25/100 portion of the condominium unit belonging to his father, to the surviving law firm.

When Nita learned about this, she filed an action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that the subject properties were acquired during the existence of her marriage to Justo through their joint efforts. And since they had no children, Nita alleged that she became a co-owner of the said properties upon the death of Justo to the extent of 3/4 pro-indiviso share consisting of her 1/2 share in the said properties plus her 1/2 share in Justo’s net estate which was bequeathed to her in the latter’s last will and testament. So Nita prayed that she be declared the owner of the 3/4 portion of the subject properties; that the same be partitioned; that an accounting of the rentals on the condominium unit pertaining to her share be conducted; that a receiver be appointed to preserve the 24/100 pro-indiviso share in the condominium unit.

The RTC however ruled that the portion of the condominium unit was acquired by Justo alone through his sole industry and that Nita has no right as owner or under any other concept over the condominium unit. However the RTC declared Nita as owner of the law books and ordered Justo’s heirs to return them to her.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the RTC ruling and held that Gina, the first wife, was the legitimate wife of Justo until the latter’s death. The CA said that the absolute divorce decree obtained by Justo abroad did not terminate his prior marriage to Gina and thus it thereby denied Nita any right to the 25/100 pro indiviso share of Justo in the condominium unit, and in the law books acquired during the second marriage. Was the CA correct?

Yes. When the first marriage between Justo and Gina, both Filipinos, was solemnized in the Philippines, the law in force adopted the nationality rule to the effect that Philippine laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons were binding upon citizens of the Philippines. Pursuant to the nationality rule, Philippine laws governed this case. So both Justo and Gina remained married until the death of Justo which terminated their marriage. From the time of the celebration of Justo’s first marriage until the present, absolute divorce between Filipino spouses has not been recognized in the Philippines. The non-recognition of absolute divorce between Filipinos has remained even under the Family Code, even if either or both of the spouses are residing abroad.

Hence the second marriage between Justo and Naty is void for being bigamous. And under Article 144 of the Civil Code, the property relation between them is governed by the rules on co-ownership. But in order to establish co-ownership Nita should prove that she actually contributed in the acquisition of the property. Even under the Family Code, where co-ownership between them is presumed, there must still be proof of actual contribution for the presumption to apply. In this case, Nita failed to prove her actual contribution in the acquisition of the subject properties (Lavadia vs. Heirs of Luna, G.R. 171914, July 23, 2014).

* * *

Email: [email protected]