MARWYN ALBANO-SALES V.

REYNOLAN SALES, CA
Ownership, administration and enjoyment > Joint administration
AKGL

DOCTRINE: Matters of genuine concern should be addressed prior to the dissolution of the property relations of the parties as a
result of the declaration of nullity of their marriage.

FACTS:
Petitioner Marwyn Albano-Sales filed a petition for the dissolution of CPG of her and her husband, Respondent Mayor Reynolan
Sales. In the meant time, Reynolan also filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of mutal psychological
incapacity. RTC ordered the parties to liquidate, partition and distribute their common properties in accordance with Art. 147.

When the decision became final and executory, Marwyn filed a motion for execution praying for distribution of the common
properties. Reynolan opposed the motion arguing that the RTC did not specify which properties are to be liquidated, partitioned and
distributed. He also alleged that Marwyn illegally disposed units of their townhouses in Xavierville, without his consent and without
proper accounting of rentals.

Marwyn filed a reiterative motion of execution specifying that the 4 units were already sold, 2 units be given to their son and the
remaining 6 units be divided equally. This was granted by the RTC. Reynolan appealed before CA, to which CA ruled in favor of
Reynolan.

ISSUE: W/N the writ of execution is valid? NO

RULING:
To emphasize, what is being questioned by respondent was not really the January 4, 2000 Decision of the RTC declaring
their marriage void ab initio on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity, but the Orders of the trial court dividing their
common properties in accordance with the proposed project of partition without the benefit of a hearing.
Incidentally, however, there were matters of genuine concern that had to be addressed prior to the dissolution of the property
relations of the parties as a result of the declaration of nullity of their marriage.
Allegations regarding the collection of rentals without proper accounting, sale of common properties without the husbands
consent and misappropriation of the proceeds thereof, are factual issues which have to be addressed in order to determine
with certainty the fair and reasonable division and distribution of properties due to each party.
The extent of properties due to respondent is not yet discernible without further presentation of evidence on the incidental
matters he had previously raised before the RTC.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 26, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 82869 is hereby
AFFIRMED. The instant case is remanded to the lower court for further reception of evidence

NOTES: