For Article 43 of the Family Code: Brigido B. Quiao, Petitioner v. Rita C. Quiao, Kitchie C. Quiao, Lotis C. Quiao, Petchie C. Quiao, represented by their mother Rita Quiao, Respondents G.R. No. 176556, 04 July 2012
Facts:
On 26 October 2000,Rita Quiao filed a complaint for legal separation against Brigido Quiao. The RTC ruled in favor of Rita with all their underaged children staying with Rita except Letecia who was of legal age.
Their acquired properties will be divided between the respondents and the petitioners subject to the respective legitimes of the children and the payment of the unpaid liabilities of PhP 45,740. The Petitioner's share of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the common children.
No Motion of Reconsideration or appeal was filed. By 12 December 2005, Petitioners filed for a motion of execution which the trial court granted, and a writ was issued. It was partially executed on 06 July 2006.
On 07 July 2006, or after more than 9 months from the promulgation of the decision, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Motion for Clarification, asking the RTC to define the term “Net Profits Earned.”
Thus, the RTC explained that the phrase “NET PROFIT EARNED” denotes “the remainder of the properties of the parties after deducting the separate properties of each [of the] spouse and the debts.” The Order further held that after determining the remainder of the properties, it shall be forfeited in favor of the common children because the offending spouse does not have any right to any share of the net profits earned, pursuant to Articles 63, No. (2) and 43, No. (2) of the Family Code. Thus, the RTC said that there was no blatant disparity when the sheriff intended to forfeit all the remaining properties after deducting the payments of the debts, because only separate properties of the Brigido shall be delivered to him which he has none.
Not satisfied with the Order, the Brigido filed an MR. Consequently, the RTC issued another Order dated 08 November 2006, holding that although the Decision dated 10 October 2005 has become final and executory, it may still consider the Motion for Clarification because Brigido simply wanted to clarify the meaning of “net profit earned.” Furthermore, the same Order held:
ALL TOLD, the Court Order dated 31 August 2006 is hereby ordered set aside. NET PROFIT EARNED, which is subject of forfeiture in favor of [the] parties' common children, is ordered to be computed in accordance [with] par. 4 of Article 102 of the Family Code.
Thereafter, Rita filed an MR praying for the correction and reversal of the Order dated 08 November 2006. Thereafter, on 08 January 2007, the trial court had changed its ruling again and granted the respondents' MR whereby the Order dated 08 November 2006 was set aside to reinstate the Order dated 31 August 2006. Not satisfied with the trial court's Order, Brigido filed on 27 February 2007 this instant Petition for Review under Rule 45.
Issue:
1) What law governs the dissolution and liquidation of the common properties of a couple who got married in 1977 (before the Family Code was enacted) and obtained a decree of legal separation when the Family Code is already in effect?
2) Can the Family Code be given retroactive effect for purposes of determining the net profits to forfeited as a result of the decree of legal separation without impairing vested rights acquired under the Old Civil Code?
Held:
1) Article 129 of the Family Code in relation to Article 63(2) of the Family Code.
2) No, it cannot be given retroactive effect if it will impair vested rights. However, the Family Code applies in the instant case because there is no vested right that will be impaired. (based on Article 256 of the Family Code which provides for retroactivity except when vested rights will be impaired).
A vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent do not depend upon events foreign to the will of the holder, or to the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency. It expresses the concept of present fixed interest which, in right reason and natural justice, should be protected against arbitrary State action, or innately just and imperative right which enlightened free society, sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual rights, cannot deny.
On 26 October 2000,Rita Quiao filed a complaint for legal separation against Brigido Quiao. The RTC ruled in favor of Rita with all their underaged children staying with Rita except Letecia who was of legal age.
Their acquired properties will be divided between the respondents and the petitioners subject to the respective legitimes of the children and the payment of the unpaid liabilities of PhP 45,740. The Petitioner's share of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the common children.
No Motion of Reconsideration or appeal was filed. By 12 December 2005, Petitioners filed for a motion of execution which the trial court granted, and a writ was issued. It was partially executed on 06 July 2006.
On 07 July 2006, or after more than 9 months from the promulgation of the decision, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Motion for Clarification, asking the RTC to define the term “Net Profits Earned.”
Thus, the RTC explained that the phrase “NET PROFIT EARNED” denotes “the remainder of the properties of the parties after deducting the separate properties of each [of the] spouse and the debts.” The Order further held that after determining the remainder of the properties, it shall be forfeited in favor of the common children because the offending spouse does not have any right to any share of the net profits earned, pursuant to Articles 63, No. (2) and 43, No. (2) of the Family Code. Thus, the RTC said that there was no blatant disparity when the sheriff intended to forfeit all the remaining properties after deducting the payments of the debts, because only separate properties of the Brigido shall be delivered to him which he has none.
Not satisfied with the Order, the Brigido filed an MR. Consequently, the RTC issued another Order dated 08 November 2006, holding that although the Decision dated 10 October 2005 has become final and executory, it may still consider the Motion for Clarification because Brigido simply wanted to clarify the meaning of “net profit earned.” Furthermore, the same Order held:
ALL TOLD, the Court Order dated 31 August 2006 is hereby ordered set aside. NET PROFIT EARNED, which is subject of forfeiture in favor of [the] parties' common children, is ordered to be computed in accordance [with] par. 4 of Article 102 of the Family Code.
Thereafter, Rita filed an MR praying for the correction and reversal of the Order dated 08 November 2006. Thereafter, on 08 January 2007, the trial court had changed its ruling again and granted the respondents' MR whereby the Order dated 08 November 2006 was set aside to reinstate the Order dated 31 August 2006. Not satisfied with the trial court's Order, Brigido filed on 27 February 2007 this instant Petition for Review under Rule 45.
Issue:
1) What law governs the dissolution and liquidation of the common properties of a couple who got married in 1977 (before the Family Code was enacted) and obtained a decree of legal separation when the Family Code is already in effect?
2) Can the Family Code be given retroactive effect for purposes of determining the net profits to forfeited as a result of the decree of legal separation without impairing vested rights acquired under the Old Civil Code?
Held:
1) Article 129 of the Family Code in relation to Article 63(2) of the Family Code.
2) No, it cannot be given retroactive effect if it will impair vested rights. However, the Family Code applies in the instant case because there is no vested right that will be impaired. (based on Article 256 of the Family Code which provides for retroactivity except when vested rights will be impaired).
A vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent do not depend upon events foreign to the will of the holder, or to the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency. It expresses the concept of present fixed interest which, in right reason and natural justice, should be protected against arbitrary State action, or innately just and imperative right which enlightened free society, sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual rights, cannot deny.
Comments
Post a Comment