514 Phil. 517
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Valuation of respondent (Record, p. 110) | Valuation of petitioner (Record, p. 111) | |
1. Acropolis property | None | P 6,000,000 |
2. Baguio City property | P 10,000,000 | 10,000,000 |
3. Nasugbu, Batangas property | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 |
4. Corinthian house and lot | 18,000,000 | 23,000,000 |
5. Sagitarius condominium | 2,500,000 | 2,000,000 |
6. Office | 30,000,000 | 24,000,000 |
7. Greenmeadows lot | 10,000,000 | 15,000,000 |
8. White Plains | 7,000,000 | 10,000,000 |
9. Corinthian lot | 12,000,000 | None |
1. Galant '83 model | None | P 120,000 |
2. Toyota Corona '79 model | - | 80,000 |
3. Coaster '77 model | - | 150,000 |
4. Pajero '89 model | - | 500,000 |
5. Corolla '92 model | 180,000 | |
6. L-300 '90 model | 350,000 | |
7. Mercedes Sedan '79 model | 220,000 | |
8. Pick-up '89 model | 100,000 | |
9. Mercedes wagon '80 model | - | 300,000 |
10. Nissan Sentra '89 model | 200,000 | |
11. 8'Tamaraws | - |
"The evidence adduced by plaintiff was overwhelming to prove that the defendant by his infliction of injuries on the plaintiff, his wife, and excessive and promiscuous hunger for sex, a personality disorder called satyriasis, was, at the time of the celebration of marriage, psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage although such incapacity became manifest only after its solemnization. The defendant's evidence, on the other hand, on the psychological incapacity of plaintiff did not have any evidentiary weight, the same being doubtful, unreliable, unclear and unconvincing."On February 12, 1997, the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered:Not satisfied with the manner their properties were divided, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. He did not contest that part of the decision which declared his marriage to respondent void ab initio.
1) Declaring the marriage contracted by and between FRANCISCO L. GONZALEZ and ERMINDA F. FLORENTINO solemnized by Rev. Fr. Alberto Ampil, S.J. on February 4, 1979, at the Manila Hilton Chapel, Nuestra de Guia Parish, Ermita, Manila, NULL and VOID ab initio with all legal effects as provided for under applicable laws;
2) Awarding the custody of minors Maria Andrea and Marco Manuel to the plaintiff, and Carlo Manuel and Maria Angela with rights of visitation given to both parties under an arrangement mutually acceptable to both of them;
3) Ordering the parties to deliver the children's legitimes pursuant to Article 50, in relation to Article 51 of the Family Code;
4) Ordering the defendant to give monthly support to Maria Andrea and Marco Manuel in the amount of Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos within five (5) days of each corresponding month delivered at the residence of the plaintiff staring January 1997 and thereafter;
5) Ordering the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains and dividing the conjugal properties between the plaintiff and the defendant as follows:6) Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant in cash the amount of P2,196,125.
- 1) Plaintiff's share of real properties:
1. Corinthian lot -------------------- P 12,000,0002. Acropolis property -------------- 6,000,0003. Baguio property ----------------- 10,000,0004. Nasugbu property -------------- 5,000,0005. Greenmeadows property ------- 12,500,0006. Sagitarius condominium -------- 2,250,000
P 47,750,000
2) Personal:
1. Pajero '89 model --------------- P 500,0002. L-300 '90 model ---------------- 350,0003. Nissan Sentra '89 model ----- 200,000 P 1,050,000- 1) Defendant's share of real properties:
2) Personal:
1. Corinthian house and lot P 20,500,0002. Office 27,000,000 P 47,500,000
1. Galant '83 model --------------- P 120,0002. Toyota Corona '79 model ------ 80,0003. Coaster '77 model -------------- 150,0004. Corolla '92 model -------------- 180,0005. Mercedes Sedan '79 model ---- 220,0006. Pick-up '89 model -------------- 100,0007. Mercedes wagon '80 model— 300,000 P 1,150,0008. Four (4) Tamaraws -------------
7) Ordering the defendant who has actual possession of the conjugal properties to deliver to plaintiff her share of the real and personal properties, including four (4) Tamaraws, above-described, and execute the necessary documents valid in law conveying the title and ownership of said properties in favor of the plaintiff."
"ART. 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.These provisions enumerate the two instances when the property relations between spouses shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. These are: (1) when a man and woman capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage; and (2) when a man and woman live together under a void marriage. Under this property regime of co-ownership, properties acquired by both parties during their union, in the absence of proof to the contrary, are presumed to have been obtained through the joint efforts of the parties and will be owned by them in equal shares.
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."