G.R. No. 171914, July 23, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Atty. Luna was married to Eugenia Zaballero-Luna with whom he begot seven children. However, he obtained a divorce decree of his marriage with Eugenia from the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the First Circumscription of the Court of First Instance of Sto. Domingo, Dominican Republic. Also in Sto. Domingo, Dominican Republic, on the same date, Atty. Luna contracted another marriage, this time with Soledad. Thereafter, Atty. Luna and Soledad returned to the Philippines and lived together as husband and wife until 1987. Atty. Luna died, leaving behind properties such as the (1) 25/100 share in a condominium unit and (2) law books found in the law office. These properties became the subject of a complaint filed by Soledad as she contended that the she should be declared as co-owner of such 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 the net estate of Atty. Luna which was bequeathed to her in the latter’s last will and testament.
The trial court rendered its decision declaring that the share in the condominium unit was acquired by Atty. Juan through his sole industry and thus plaintiff has no right as owner or under any other concept over the said property. However, she was declared to be the owner of the books found in the condominium unit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the divorce decree obtained by Atty. Luna did not terminate his prior marriage, thus, it adjudged nothing to the respondent and gave all the properties to the heirs of Atty. Luna from his first marriage.
The Supreme Court ruled that conformably with the nationality rule, however, the divorce, even if voluntarily obtained abroad, did not dissolve the marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia, which subsisted up to the time of his death on July 12, 1997. As such, the marriage between Atty. Luna and Soledad is void-bigamous and their property relations would be governed by the rules on co-ownership. However, Soledad was not able to prove his contributions to the acquisition of the subject properties. Moreover, given the subsistence of the first marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia, the presumption that Atty. Luna acquired the properties out of his own personal funds and effort remained. Consequently, the sole ownership of the 25/100 pro indiviso share of Atty. Luna in the condominium unit, and of the lawbooks pertained to the respondents as the lawful heirs of Atty. Luna. Petitioner, the second wife of Atty. Luna, by virtue of the invalidity of the divorce between Atty. Luna and his first wife is thus entitled to no share.
FACTS:
Atty. Luna, a practicing lawyer, was at first a name partner in the prestigious law firm Sycip, Salazar, Luna, Manalo, Hernandez & Feliciano Law Offices at that time when he was living with his first wife, herein intervenor-appellant Eugenia Zaballero-Luna, whom he initially married in a civil ceremony conducted by the Justice of the Peace of Parañaque, Rizal on September 10, 1947 and later solemnized in a church ceremony at the Pro-Cathedral in San Miguel, Bulacan on September 12, 1948. In Atty. Luna’s marriage to Eugenia, they begot seven (7) children, namely: Regina Maria L. Nadal, Juan Luis Luna, Araceli Victoria L. Arellano, Ana Maria L. Tabunda, Gregorio Macario Luna, Carolina Linda L. Tapia, and Cesar Antonio Luna. After almost two (2) decades of marriage, Atty. Luna and Eugenia eventually agreed to live apart from each other whereby they agreed to live separately and to dissolve and liquidate their conjugal partnership of property. On January 12, 1977, Atty. Luna obtained a divorce decree of his marriage with Eugenia from the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the First Circumscription of the Court of First Instance of Sto. Domingo, Dominican Republic. Also in Sto. Domingo, Dominican Republic, on the same date, Atty. Luna contracted another marriage, this time with Soledad. Thereafter, Atty. Luna and Soledad returned to the Philippines and lived together as husband and wife until 1987.
Sometime in 1977, Atty. Luna organized a new law firm named: Luna, Puruganan, Sison and Ongkiko (LUPSICON) where Atty. Luna was the managing partner. On February 14, 1978, LUPSICON through Atty. Luna purchased the 6th Floor of Kalaw-Ledesma Condominium Project at Gamboa St., Makati City. Sometime in 1992, LUPSICON was dissolved and the condominium unit was partitioned by the partners; the parties stipulated that the interest of Atty. Luna over the condominium unit would be 25/100 shares. Atty. Luna thereafter established and headed another law firm with Atty. Renato G. De la Cruz and used a portion of the office condominium unit as their office. The said law firm lasted until the death of Atty. Luna on July 12, 1997. After the death of Atty. Juan, his share in the condominium unit including the law books, office furniture and equipment found therein were taken over by Gregorio Z. Luna, Atty. Luna’s son of the first marriage. Gregorio Z. Luna then leased out the 25/100 portion of the condominium unit belonging to his father to Atty. Renato G. De la Cruz who established his own law firm named Renato G. De la Cruz & Associates.
A complaint was filed by Soledad against the heirs of Atty. Luna with the RTC of Makati City on September 10, 1999 alleging that the subject properties (the share in the condominium unit and the law books) were acquired during the existence of the marriage between Atty. Luna and Soledad through their joint efforts that since they had no children, Soledad became co-owner of the said properties upon the death of Atty. Luna 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 the net estate of Atty. Luna which was bequeathed to her in the latter’s last will and testament; and that the heirs of Atty. Luna through Gregorio Z. Luna excluded Soledad from her share in the subject properties.
The trial court rendered its decision declaring that the share in the condominium unit was acquired by Atty. Juan through his sole industry and thus plaintiff has no right as owner or under any other concept over the said property. However, she was declared to be the owner of the books found in the condominium unit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the divorce decree obtained by Atty. Luna did not terminate his prior marriage, thus it adjudged nothing to the respondent and gave all the properties to the heirs of Atty. Luna from his first marriage.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the 25/100 pro indiviso share in the condominium unit and the law books of the deceased husband is part of his conjugal property with his second wife, petitioner herein – NO.
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The first marriage between Atty. Luna. and Eugenia, both Filipinos, was solemnized in the Philippines on September 10, 1947. The law in force at the time of the solemnization was the Spanish Civil Code, which adopted the nationality rule. The Civil Code continued to follow 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, although living abroad. Pursuant to the nationality rule, Philippine laws governed this case by virtue of both Atty. Luna and Eugenia having remained Filipinos until the death of Atty. Luna.
It is true that on January 12, 1976, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Sto. Domingo in the Dominican Republic issued the Divorce Decree dissolving the first marriage of Atty. Luna and Eugenia. Conformably with the nationality rule, however, the divorce, even if voluntarily obtained abroad, did not dissolve the marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia, which subsisted up to the time of his death on July 12, 1997. This finding conforms to the Constitution, which characterizes marriage as an inviolable social institution, and regards it as a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman for the establishment of a conjugal and family life. The non-recognition of absolute divorce in the Philippines is a manifestation of the respect for the sanctity of the marital union especially among Filipino citizens. It affirms that the extinguishment of a valid marriage must be grounded only upon the death of either spouse, or upon a ground expressly provided by law. For as long as this public policy on marriage between Filipinos exists, no divorce decree dissolving the marriage between them can ever be given legal or judicial recognition and enforcement in this jurisdiction.
Considering that Atty. Luna and Eugenia had not entered into any marriage settlement prior to their marriage on September 10, 1947, the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains governed their property relations. The mere execution of the Agreement by Atty. Luna and Eugenia did not per se dissolve and liquidate their conjugal partnership of gains. The approval of the Agreement by a competent court was still required under Article 190 and Article 191 of the Civil Code.
The approval of the Agreement by the CFI of Sto. Domingo in the Dominican Republic was insufficient in dissolving and liquidating the conjugal partnership of gains between the late Atty. Luna and Eugenia. The approval took place only as an incident of the action for divorce instituted by Atty. Luna and Eugenia, for, indeed, the justifications for their execution of the Agreement were identical to the grounds raised in the action for divorce. With the divorce not being itself valid and enforceable under Philippine law for being contrary to Philippine public policy and public law, the approval of the Agreement was not also legally valid and enforceable under Philippine law. Consequently, the conjugal partnership of gains of Atty. Luna and Eugenia subsisted in the lifetime of their marriage.
Due to the second marriage between Atty. Luna and the petitioner being void ab initio by virtue of its being bigamous, the properties acquired during the bigamous marriage were governed by the rules on co-ownership. In such a situation, whoever alleges co-ownership carries the burden of proof to confirm such fact. To establish co-ownership, therefore, it became imperative for the petitioner to offer proof of her actual contributions in the acquisition of property. However, as found by the CA, the petitioner, as the party claiming the co-ownership, did not discharge her burden of proof. Her mere allegations on her contributions, not being evidence, did not serve the purpose. In contrast, given the subsistence of the first marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia, the presumption that Atty. Luna acquired the properties out of his own personal funds and effort remained. It should then be justly concluded that the properties in litis legally pertained to their conjugal partnership of gains as of the time of his death. Consequently, the sole ownership of the 25/100 pro indiviso share of Atty. Luna in the condominium unit, and of the law books pertained to the respondents as the lawful heirs of Atty. Luna.