JOCELYN TAGARO-COLES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. MAGDALINO A. COLES, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

Tagaro-Coles versus Coles

The Case

This is the case of Tagaro-Coles versus Coles, a petition brought by Jocelyn Tagaro-Coles against her husband Magdalino A. Coles. Jocelyn sought the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of Magdalino's psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the petition and nullified the marriage, but its decision was silent on the dissolution and liquidation of the spouses' community properties and made no provision for the support of their three children. The case matters because it teaches two things a reviewee must never confuse: the procedural gate that bars an appeal in nullity cases, and the substantive duty of the final judgment to settle property, custody, support, and presumptive legitimes.

Procedural History

Jocelyn filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, of Borongan, Eastern Samar. On September 20, 2011, the trial court rendered a decision granting the petition and nullifying the marriage between Magdalino and Jocelyn. The decision, however, was silent on the dissolution and liquidation of the community properties of the spouses, and it provided no provision for the support of the three children. Jocelyn then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, seeking review of that decision. She did not raise the errors of the trial court; instead, she asked what constitutes the conjugal assets to be dissolved and liquidated, and how liquidation and support for the children would be provided.

Facts

Magdalino A. Coles and Jocelyn Tagaro-Coles were married on April 18, 1990 in Larena, Siquijor. Out of their union, they begot three children: Christine Anne, Jyacinth, and Angelinn.

On March 16, 2007, Jocelyn filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Magdalino on the ground of his psychological incapacity. She prayed for the nullity of the marriage, the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains, and support for their three children.

On September 20, 2011, the trial court granted the petition and nullified the marriage. But the decision was silent on the dissolution and liquidation of the community properties, and it contained no provision for the support of the children. Earlier, in an order dated October 30, 2007, the trial court had already ordered Magdalino to render support to his children in the amount of 3,000 pesos per month, subject to modification depending on the financial circumstances of the parties.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal may be entertained when the petitioner-appellant failed to file a motion for reconsideration or new trial from the decision of the trial court.
• Whether or not the trial court's decision should have provided for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes.
• Whether or not the proper remedy for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties, and for support, is a motion filed in the same proceedings rather than an appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages provides:

Section 20. Appeal. – (1) Pre-condition. – No appeal from the decision shall be allowed unless the appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from notice of judgment. (2) Notice of appeal. – An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may appeal from the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the adverse parties.

This provision is the procedural gate that, on the Court's reasoning, makes the dismissal of the appeal inevitable.

Article 50 of the Family Code provides:

Article 50. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which are declared ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45. The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation. In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129.

This is the substantive standard the trial court's decision failed to meet.

Section 21 of the same Rule provides:

Section 21. Liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes.—Upon entry of the judgment granting the petition, or, in case of appeal, upon receipt of the entry of judgment of the appellate court granting the petition, the Family Court, on motion of either party, shall proceed with the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, including custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.

This provision identifies the motion, not the appeal, as the correct vehicle for those reliefs.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal should be dismissed at the outset because the petitioner-appellant failed to file a motion for reconsideration or new trial from the decision of the trial court. That motion is a pre-condition before filing an appeal from the decision of the trial court, as Section 20 expressly commands. Consequently, the dismissal of the appeal was inevitable.

On the second issue, the Court nonetheless noted that the trial court should have rendered judgment relative to the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the parties. Quoting its earlier ruling, the Court recalled that when a marriage is declared void ab initio, the law states that the final judgment shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in the previous proceedings. The legal basis is Article 50 of the Family Code. Measured against it, the trial court's decision was clearly wanting: it merely addressed the nullity of the marriage and was silent on the rest.

On the third issue, the Court held that the proper procedure, upon entry of the judgment granting the petition, is to file a motion for the purpose of liquidation, partition and distribution under Section 21. The petitioner-appellant should have filed such a motion instead of an appeal. With respect to the support due to the children, that motion would also be needed to confirm the provisional adjudication on support contained in the trial court's order of October 30, 2007, by which Magdalino had already been ordered to render support of 3,000 pesos per month, subject to modification depending on the financial circumstances of the parties.

Doctrine

• In a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage, no appeal from the decision shall be allowed unless the appellant has first filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from notice of judgment. The motion is a mandatory pre-condition.
• Under Article 50 of the Family Code, the final judgment in a nullity case must provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless these matters were adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.
• The remedy for securing those reliefs after entry of judgment is a motion filed in the same proceedings under Section 21, not an appeal. The Family Court, on motion of either party, shall then proceed with liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support, and delivery of presumptive legitimes pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, of Borongan, Eastern Samar dated September 20, 2011 was affirmed, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in a nullity case, no appeal without a prior motion for reconsideration or new trial, and the remedy for liquidation, custody, support, and presumptive legitimes is a motion under Section 21, not an appeal. Examiners use this case to test the procedural pre-condition for appeals in nullity proceedings and the Article 50 requirement that the final judgment settle property and support.