DINO v. DINO FACTS: Alain and Ma. Caridad L. Dio (respondent) were childhood friends and sweethearts.

They started living together in 19 ! "ntil they decided to separate in 199!. #n 199$% petitioner and respondent decided to live together again and they got &arried on 199 % 'efore Mayor (ergel Ag"ilar of Las )ias City. )et. filed an action for Declaration of *"llity of Marriage against respondent% citing psychological incapacity under Article 36 o the Fa!ily Code. alleged that respondent failed in her &arital o'ligation to give love and s"pport to hi&% and had a'andoned her responsi'ility to the fa&ily% choosing instead to go on shopping sprees and gallivanting with her friends that depleted the fa&ily assets. )et. f"rther alleged that respondent was not faithf"l% and wo"ld at ti&es 'eco&e violent and h"rt hi&. )etitioner later learned that respondent filed a petition for divorce+dissol"tion of her &arriage with petitioner% which was granted 'y the ,C of California on May -..1. Th"s learned that respondent &arried a certain Man"el (. Alcantara. Dr. *edy L. Tayag (Dr. Tayag)% a clinical psychologist% s"'&itted a psychological report esta'lishing that respondent was s"ffering fro& Narcissistic "ersonality Disorder which was deeply ingrained in her syste& since her early for&ative years. Dr. Tayag fo"nd that respondent/s disorder was long0lasting and 'y nat"re% inc"ra'le. TC granted petition on the gro"nd that respondent was psychologically incapacited to co&ply with the essential &arital o'ligations at the ti&e of the cele'ration of the &arriage. Alleging f"rther that respondent co&&itted acts which h"rt and e&'arrassed petitioner and the rest of the fa&ily% and that respondent failed to o'serve &"t"al love% respect and fidelity re1"ired of her "nder Article $ of the 2a&ily Code. Th"s declaring that &arriage 'etween the parties is void and the AC) is dissolved and shall only 'e iss"ed "pon co&pliance with Art. 3.%31 of the 2C. ISS#$: 45* trial co"rt erred when it ordered the decree of a'sol"te n"llity of &arriage shall only 'e iss"ed after li1"idation% partition% and distri'"tion of the parties/ properties "nder Article 1!6 of the 2a&ily Code7 %$&D: '$S. Article ()* o the Fa!ily Code applies to the property relations +et,een petitioner and respondent. Co"rt aggress with contention of the petitioner assails the r"ling of the trial co"rt ordering that a decree of a'sol"te n"llity of &arriage

shall only 'e iss"ed after li1"idation% partition% and distri'"tion of the parties/ properties "nder Article 1!6 of the 2a&ily Code. )etitioner arg"es that ,ection 19(1) of the 8"le on Declaration of A'sol"te *"llity of *"ll Marriages and Ann"l&ent of (oida'le Marriages$ (the 8"le) does not apply to Article 1!6 of the 2a&ily Code. Article 147 of the Family Code provides: Article 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their wor or industry shall be governed by the rules on co!ownership. #n the a'sence of proof to the contrary% properties ac1"ired while they lived together shall 'e pres"&ed to have 'een o'tained 'y their 9oint efforts% wor: or ind"stry% and shall 'e owned 'y the& in e1"al shares. 2or p"rposes of this Article% a party who did not participate in the ac1"isition 'y the other party of any property shall 'e dee&ed to have contri'"ted 9ointly in the ac1"isition thereof if the for&er/s efforts consisted in the care and &aintenance of the fa&ily and of the ho"sehold. 2or Article 1!6 of the 2a&ily Code to apply% the following ele&ents &"st 'e present; o The &an and the wo&an &"st 'e capacitated to &arry each other< o They live e=cl"sively with each other as h"s'and and wife< and o Their "nion is witho"t the 'enefit of &arriage% or their &arriage is void. o 4e agree with petitioner that the trial co"rt erred in ordering that a decree of a'sol"te n"llity of &arriage shall 'e iss"ed only after li1"idation% partition and distri'"tion of the parties/ properties "nder Article 1!6 of the 2a&ily Code. The r"ling has no 'asis 'eca"se ,ection 19(1) of the 8"le does not apply to cases governed "nder Articles 1!6 and 1! of the 2a&ily Code. #n this case% petitioner/s &arriage to respondent was declared void "nder Article >$13 of the 2a&ily Code and not "nder Article !. or !3. Th"s% what governs the li1"idation of properties owned in co&&on 'y petitioner and respondent are the r"les on co0 ownership. The r"les on co0ownership apply and the properties of the spo"ses sho"ld 'e li1"idated in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on co0ownership. ?nder Article !9$ of the Civil Code% @ApBartition &ay 'e &ade 'y agree&ent 'etween the parties or 'y 9"dicial proceedings. = = =.C #t is not necessary to li1"idate the properties of

the spo"ses in the sa&e proceeding for declaration of n"llity of &arriage.