G.R. No. 155409 ; June 8, 2007
Virgilio Maquilan, petitioner, vs. Dita Maquilan, respondent.

FACTS

Spouses Virgilio and Dita Maquilan’s marriage deteriorated after Virgilio discovered Dita’s adultery, leading to her criminal conviction. Subsequently, Dita filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage based on psychological incapacity. During pre-trial, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement to partially settle their conjugal partnership of gains, which included provisions for the division of bank deposits, a store, a bodega, vehicles, and the allocation of a house and lot to their child. The Regional Trial Court approved this agreement via a Judgment on Compromise Agreement.
Virgilio later filed an Omnibus Motion to repudiate the Compromise Agreement, arguing his former counsel did not properly advise him of its legal consequences. The RTC denied his motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration. Virgilio then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for lack of merit, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s approval of the Compromise Agreement and in denying Virgilio’s motion for its repudiation.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic is clear: a compromise agreement on the liquidation of conjugal property during the pendency of a nullity case is valid and binding. The Court emphasized that Articles 43 and 63 of the Family Code, which provide for forfeiture of share in favor of the innocent spouse in cases of a void subsequent marriage or legal separation, are not applicable here. Dita’s petition was for nullity under Article 36 (psychological incapacity), not a case for legal separation or a void marriage under Article 41. Since no final decree of nullity had been issued, the conjugal partnership technically persisted, but the law permits spouses to voluntarily agree on property separation under Article 134 of the Family Code.
The Compromise Agreement constituted such a voluntary separation of property, approved by the court. The Court found no vitiation of consent, ruling that a lawyer’s alleged negligence in advice, absent gross negligence or deprivation of due process, binds the client. The agreement’s terms were straightforward, and Virgilio, as a person of ordinary intelligence, could comprehend them. Furthermore, his claim that the agreement was void for compromising on the “validity of a marriage” under Article 2035 of the Civil Code was misplaced, as the agreement pertained only to property liquidation, not the status of the marriage itself. The agreement was thus upheld as a valid and enforceable contract.