Scribd
Upload
298 views1 page

Valdez Vs RTC 260 Scra 221

The Supreme Court ruled that in a void marriage where Antonio Valdez filed for nullity of his marriage to Consuelo Gomez due to psychological incapacity, the property acquired during their marriage is considered co-owned. Any property obtained during the union is presumed to be from their joint efforts. Even if one party did not directly participate in acquiring the property, their efforts in caring for the family is considered a joint contribution to obtaining the property. The court also placed two of their five children under the custody of their mother while the other three children could choose which parent to stay with.

Uploaded by

Lauri Belle Torres Arciaga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
298 views1 page

Valdez Vs RTC 260 Scra 221

The Supreme Court ruled that in a void marriage where Antonio Valdez filed for nullity of his marriage to Consuelo Gomez due to psychological incapacity, the property acquired during their marriage is considered co-owned. Any property obtained during the union is presumed to be from their joint efforts. Even if one party did not directly participate in acquiring the property, their efforts in caring for the family is considered a joint contribution to obtaining the property. The court also placed two of their five children under the custody of their mother while the other three children could choose which parent to stay with.

Uploaded by

Lauri Belle Torres Arciaga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Valdez vs RTC 260 SCRA 221

G.R. No. 122749


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. 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the property regime should be based on
co-ownership.
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 presumed to have been
obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not
participate in the acquisition of the property shall be considered
as having contributed thereto jointly if said partys efforts
consisted in the care and maintenance of the family.

You might also like