Dissolution of Absolute Community Regime

The regimes of absolute community commence

at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated

and any stipulation, express or implied, allowing

such regime to commence at any other time is
expressly declared to be void.

Art. 99. The absolute community terminates:

1) Upon the death of either spouse;
2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or
4) In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage
under Art. 134 to 138 (175a)

(3) when the marriage is annulled

- limited only to a judicial declaration of a void
marriage under Art.40
* regime of absolute community may only exist in a valid
or
at least voidable marriage (until the contract is
annulled);
in void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the
property relation of the parties during the period of
cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Art. 147 or
art. 148of the Family Code.

ANTONIO A. S. VALDEZ,
petitioner, vs.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 102, QUEZON CITY, and CONSUELO M.
GOMEZ-VALDEZ,
respondents.

Facts:
Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married on January 5, 1971 and later had 5
kids. On June 22, 1992, Antonio sought the declaration of nullity of the marriage pursuant to
Art. 36 of the FC.. The RTC of Quezon City rendered judgment and declared the marriage null and
void under Art. 36 of the FC on the ground of their mutual psychological incapacity to comply
with their essential marital obligations and ordered the liquidation of their common properties as
defined by Art. 147 of the FC and to comply with the provisions of Art. 50, 51and 52 of the
FC. Consuelo sought a clarification of the order of the court and asserted that the FC did not have
provisions for the liquidation of common property in unions without marriage.
The court explained in an order dated May 5, 1995 that the property including the
family home acquired during their union are presumed to have been obtained through joined
efforts and the property would be owned by them in equal shares and the liquidation and
partition of property would be governed by the regime of co-ownership.
The court also explained that Art 102 does not apply since it refers to the procedure for
liquidation of conjugal partnership property. Art 129 also does not apply because it refers to
procedures for liquidation of the absolute community of property
Antonio moved for a reconsideration of the order. The motion was denied.

Issues:
Whether or not Art 147 is the correct law governing the
disposition of property in the case at bar
Whether or not Art 147 applies to marriages declared null and
void pursuant to Art. 36
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the questioned orders, dated 05 May 1995 and
30 October 1995, of the trial court are AFFIRMED

Art. 100. The separation in fact between husband and wife shall
not affect the regime of absolute community except that:
1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein,
within just cause, shall not have the right to be supported;
2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction of the other is
required by law, judicial authorization shall be obtained in a summary
proceeding;
3) In the absence of sufficient community property, the separate property
of both spouses shall be solidarily liable for the support of the family.
The spouse present shall, upon proper petition in a summary
proceeding, be given judicial authority to administer or encumber any
specific separate property of the other spouse and use the fruits or
proceeds thereof to satisfy the latters share. (178a).

Separation de facto
A situation where the spouses simply separate without the benefit of
decree of legal separation; does not produce the effects of Art. 63.
the spouses retained their right of consortium because in the eyes of
the law, they are not entitled to live separately from each other;
does not affect the regimes of absolute community or conjugal
partnership of gains;
the spouses continue to be legal heir of each other in intestate
succession; and
there is neither a guilty spouse nor innocent spouse.

Art. 101. If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply
with his or her obligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the
court for receivership, for judicial separation of property or for authority to be
the sole administrator of the absolute community, subject to such
precautionary conditions as the court may impose.
The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer
to marital, parental or property relations.
A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left
the conjugal dwelling without any intention of returning. The spouse who has
left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the
same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be
prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning t the conjugal dwelling.

In case of abandonment
Abandonment in legal significance is the act of one
spouse voluntarily separating from the other, with the
intention of not returning to live together as husband and wife,
that continues the length of time required by the statute.
par(3)
The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period
of three months or has failed within the same period to give
information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie
presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal
dwelling.

The following effects are produced:

1. the spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein,
without just cause, shall not have the right to be supported;
2. the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for
judicial separation of property or for authority to be the sole
administrator of the absolute community or of the conjugal
partnership, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may
impose;
3. the aggrieved spouse may petition for legal separation if the
abandonment lasts for more than one (1) year.