GR 202370; (September, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 202370; September 23, 2013
JUAN SEVILLA SALAS, JR., Petitioner, vs. EDEN VILLENA AGUILA, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Juan Sevilla Salas, Jr. and respondent Eden Villena Aguila were married in 1985. Aguila filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in 2003, stating therein that the parties had “no conjugal properties whatsoever.” The marriage was declared null and void in 2007. Subsequently, Aguila discovered three parcels of land registered under “Juan S. Salas, married to Rubina C. Salas.” She filed a manifestation seeking their partition. Salas opposed, arguing Aguila’s petition constituted a judicial admission of no conjugal property and that she had waived any claim. He also claimed he had already waived other properties in her favor. Rubina Cortez filed a complaint-in-intervention, asserting the discovered properties were her paraphernal assets, registered in that manner due to a documentation error.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to order the partition of the properties discovered after the entry of judgment declaring the marriage null and void.
RULING
Yes, the trial court retained jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts ordering the partition of the discovered properties, but on the basis of co-ownership, not conjugal partnership of gains. The Court clarified that a declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code, based on psychological incapacity, results in the property regime being governed by the rules on co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code, as the union is deemed a void marriage. Consequently, all property acquired during the cohabitation is presumed to have been obtained through the joint efforts of the parties and is owned in common.
The Court held that Aguila’s statement in her petition was not a conclusive judicial admission that would bar her claim. A judicial admission must be made deliberately and with full understanding. Aguila’s assertion was made prior to her discovery of the properties and was therefore not a deliberate waiver of a known right. The trial court correctly retained jurisdiction to effectuate a complete adjudication of the case, including the liquidation and partition of the co-owned properties, even after the entry of judgment on the nullity. The claim of Rubina Cortez, an intervenor, regarding the nature of the properties was a separate matter that did not divest the court of its authority to rule on the partition between Salas and Aguila.