GOMEZ vs.

LIPANA

On the second issue, the conjugal partnership formed by the second

The defendant-appellant, Joaquin P. Lipana, contracted two marriages: the
first with Maria Loreto Ancino in 1930 and the second with Isidra Gomez y
Aquino in 1935. At the time of the second marriage the first was still
subsisting, which fact, however, Lipana concealed from the second wife.
marriage was dissolved by the death of the second wife; and there has been
no judicial declaration of nullity except possibly in this very action, filed after
dissolution by death had taken place and when Article 1417 of the Spanish
Civil Code was no longer in force.

On December 17, 1943 the spouses of the second marriage acquired by
purchase a piece of land in Cubao, Quezon City, for the price of P3,000.00.
The Torrens title for the property (Transfer Certificate No. 25289 of the
Register of Deeds for Quezon City) was issued on February 1, 1944, in the
name of “Joaquin Lipana married to Isidra Gomez.” On July 20, 1958 Isidra
Gomez died intestate and childless, and survived only by her sisters as the
nearest relatives. On August 7, 1961 Ofelia Gomez, judicial administratrix of
her estate, commenced the present suit, praying for the forfeiture of the
husband’s share in the Cubao property in favor of the said estate. Reliance is
placed on Article 1417 of the old Civil Code, the Spanish text of which
provides:
La sociedad de gananciales concluye al disolverse el matrimonio o al ser
declarado nulo.
Even though the said provision was no longer in force it is still presumed,
with respect to the spouse who acted in bad faith, that neither the marriage
nor the conjugal partnership ever existed, and hence such spouse has no
right to share in the conjugal properties; but this legal effect of such
presumption derives from the premise that Article 1417 is still in force, and
in any event is of doubtful application if it would be in derogation of and to
the prejudice of the right of the other spouse of the first marriage in the
conjugal partnership formed thereby, which includes properties acquired by
the husband during its existence.
The only just and equitable solution in this case would be to recognize the
right of the second wife to her husband, and consider the other half as
pertaining to the conjugal partnership of the first marriage.

The decision appealed from is reversed and the complaint is dismissed,

without pronouncement as to costs.
El conjuge que por su mala fe hubiere sido causa de la nulidad, no tendra
parte en los bienes gananciales.

Fujiki vs. Marinay

The society of joint property concludes after the marriage dissolves or on GR No. 196049, June 26, 2013
having been declared void. The conjuge that for his bad faith will have been
a cause of the nullity, will not have part in the community properties.
FACTS:

The trial court, ruling that the second marriage was void ab initio and that
the husband was the one who gave cause for its nullity, applied the
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married
aforequoted provision and declared his interest in the disputed property
respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines. The
forfeited in favor of the estate of the deceased second wife.
marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki could not
bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with
each other.
In the present appeal by the defendant he attributes two errors to the trial
court: (1) in allowing a collateral attack on the validity of the second
marriage and in holding it to be bigamous and void ab initio; and (2) in
Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the
holding that Article 1417 of the Spanish Civil Code is applicable in this case.
first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara got married in Quezon
City. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly
suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to
ISSUE: WON a collateral attack on the validity on the second marriage in contact Fujiki.
holding it to be bigamous and void ab initio.

Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to re-establish their
WON that Article 1417 of the Spanish Civil Code is applicable in this case. relationship. Fujiki then helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family
court in Japan declaring her marriage in Maekara void on the ground of
bigamy.

HELD:

Later, back in the Philippines, Fujiki filed a petition for a Judicial Recognition
of Foreign Judgment before the RTC. However, the trial court dismissed the
Yes. The party who challenges the validity of the second marriage can be
petition maintaining that Fujiki lacks personality file the petition.
challenged collaterally. There is no suggestion here that the defendant’s
1930 marriage to Maria Loreto Ancino had been annulled or dissolved when
he married Isidra Gomez in 1935, and there is no proof that he did so under
the conditions envisioned in sub-section (b). the burden is on the party ISSUE:
invoking the exception to prove that he comes under it; and the defendant
has not discharged that burden at all, no evidence whatsoever having been
adduced by him at the trial. Indeed, he contracted the second marriage less
than seven years after the first, and he has not shown that his first wife was
then generally considered dead or was believed by him to be so.
Whether or not a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. A party who
recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall be considered as
his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy. having contributed thereto jointly if said party’s efforts consisted in the care
and maintenance of the family.

RULING:
*prima facie- based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved
otherwise

Yes, a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a

foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her
spouse and a foreign citizen.

Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact of the
judgment, it may be made in a special proceeding for cancellation or
correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Section 1 of the said rule provides for who may file such petition, to wit:

Sec. 1: Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act, event,
order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been
recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation
or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of
the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.

In this case, there is no doubt that the prior spouse, Fujiki, has a personal
and material interest in maintaining the integrity of the marriage he
contracted and the property relations arising from it. Thus, he has the legal
personality to file the petition. PETITION GRANTED.

Valdes vs. RTC

260 SCRA 221

FACTS:

Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married in 1971 and begotten 5
children. Valdez filed a petition in 1992 for a declaration of nullity of their
marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code, which was granted hence,
marriage is null and void on the ground of their mutual psychological
incapacity. Stella and Joaquin are placed under the custody of their mother
while the other 3 siblings are free to choose which they prefer.

*Art. 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.( As amended by E.O.
No.227, dated July 17, 1987)

Gomez sought a clarification of that portion in the decision regarding the

procedure for the liquidation of common property in “unions without
marriage”. During the hearing on the motion, the children filed a joint
affidavit expressing desire to stay with their father.

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled that in a void marriage, regardless of the cause
thereof, the property relations of the parties are governed by the rules on
co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie