GR L 20379; (June, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20379 June 22, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION OF THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF JOSE BERMAS, SR. and PILAR MANUEL BERMAS and SEPARATION OF PROPERTY, JOSE BERMAS, SR. and PILAR MANUEL BERMAS, petitioners-appellants.
FACTS
Petitioners Jose Bermas, Sr. and Pilar Manuel Bermas, legally married since December 24, 1932, filed a petition for the voluntary dissolution of their conjugal partnership and the establishment of a regime of separation of property as per their executed “Agreement for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and Separation of Property” (Exhibit Q). They alleged the agreement was for mutual advantage and to prevent future family friction, particularly because Jose Bermas, Sr. has children from a previous marriage. The petition stated the conjugal partnership had no outstanding debts and the dissolution would not prejudice any creditor. The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City denied the petition, ruling that under Article 192 of the Civil Code, a conjugal partnership dissolves only upon legal separation, which under Article 191 requires civil interdiction, declaration of absence, or abandonment.
ISSUE
Whether a conjugal partnership may be voluntarily dissolved during the marriage upon agreement of the spouses, subject to judicial approval, under Article 191 of the Civil Code.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the lower court’s decision and remanded the case. The fourth paragraph of Article 191 of the Civil Code explicitly allows spouses to agree upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the marriage, subject to judicial approval, with notification to creditors. However, the Court found the proceedings deficient because the children from Jose Bermas, Sr.’s first marriage, who have an interest in the liquidation of the prior conjugal partnership with their mother, were not personally notified, nor were their names and addresses provided. The children of the present marriage were also not notified, though the risk to them was remote. The liquidation of the current conjugal partnership cannot proceed without addressing the rights of the children from the first marriage, as the division of property between different conjugal partnerships must be proportional under Article 189. The case was remanded for further proceedings with proper notification to all necessary parties.