G.R. No. 102126. March 12, 1993
ANGELICA LEDESMA, petitioner, vs. INTESTATE ESTATE OF CIPRIANO PEDROSA represented by Nelson Jimena, Honorable Judge Bethel Katalbas-Moscardon in her capacity as Presiding Judge-Designate, Branch 51, RTC, Bacolod City, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Angelica Ledesma’s marriage to Cipriano Pedrosa was declared null and void by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Branch 51, on February 8, 1984, in Civil Case No. 1446. The court ordered that properties acquired by the parties while living together as common-law spouses be governed by co-ownership rules, and properties acquired after their solemnized marriage (annulled by the court) be liquidated as part of the conjugal partnership. On May 4, 1989, the court ordered the submission of an inventory of properties to verify and determine the correct list. Pending this, Cipriano Pedrosa died. A separate petition for probate of his last will and testament (Sp. Proc. No. 4159) was filed, with Nelson Jimena named executor and substituted for Pedrosa in the partition proceedings. Due to disagreements on property characterization, the court ordered comments on a project of partition. After the presiding judge died, respondent Judge Bethel Katalbas-Moscardon, as presiding judge-designate, issued an order on January 24, 1991, deeming the partition case terminated and moot due to Pedrosa’s death and the pendency of intestate (testate) proceedings, stating that petitioner could pursue her claims via intervention in the estate proceedings. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this special civil action for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in considering the supplemental action for partition (liquidation) as terminated and moot due to the death of Cipriano Pedrosa and the pendency of estate proceedings, instead of proceeding to decide the partition case as a necessary incident of the final decree of annulment.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the respondent judge’s order dated January 24, 1991. The Court held that the partition (liquidation) of conjugal properties is a necessary consequence and mere incident of the final decree annulling the marriage, citing the analogous case of Macadangdang v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-38287, October 23, 1981), which involved legal separation. The dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership automatically follow the finality of a decree of annulment (or legal separation). The death of a spouse before liquidation does not render the partition case moot; instead, the rules on dissolution and liquidation should first be applied to determine each spouse’s share, after which any properties allocated to the deceased spouse shall be distributed according to the law on succession (or his will in the testate proceedings). The respondent judge (or her successor) was ordered to decide the partition case (Civil Case No. 1446) within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision.