1) Benigno and Rose Marie Toda filed a joint petition for judicial approval of their conjugal partnership separation on April 1, 1981, which was signed on March 30, 1981 with a compromise agreement.
2) The Court of Appeals held that the compromise agreement separating the conjugal partnership was only effective on June 9, 1981, when the trial court approved it.
3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that under the Civil Code, separation of property requires judicial approval to be effective, not just the agreement of the parties. The conjugal partnership was therefore only dissolved when approved by the court on June 9, 1981.
1) Benigno and Rose Marie Toda filed a joint petition for judicial approval of their conjugal partnership separation on April 1, 1981, which was signed on March 30, 1981 with a compromise agreement.
2) The Court of Appeals held that the compromise agreement separating the conjugal partnership was only effective on June 9, 1981, when the trial court approved it.
3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that under the Civil Code, separation of property requires judicial approval to be effective, not just the agreement of the parties. The conjugal partnership was therefore only dissolved when approved by the court on June 9, 1981.
1) Benigno and Rose Marie Toda filed a joint petition for judicial approval of their conjugal partnership separation on April 1, 1981, which was signed on March 30, 1981 with a compromise agreement.
2) The Court of Appeals held that the compromise agreement separating the conjugal partnership was only effective on June 9, 1981, when the trial court approved it.
3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that under the Civil Code, separation of property requires judicial approval to be effective, not just the agreement of the parties. The conjugal partnership was therefore only dissolved when approved by the court on June 9, 1981.
TUASON-TODA ROSE MARIE TUASON-TODA v. BENIGNO TODA, JR. G.R. Nos. 78583-4 and G.R. Nos.78696-7 March 26,1990, REGALADO, J.
The separation of property is not effected by the
mere execution of the contract or agreement of the parties, but by the decree of the court approving the same. It, therefore, becomes effective on y upon judicial approval, without which it is void.
Facts:
Benigno and Rose Marie Toda were married until the
alleged infidelity of Benigno which promted Romse Marie to file for the termination of their marriage for alleged mismanagement and dissipation of conjugal funds against Bengigno. The parties agreed to file a joint petition for judicial approval of conjugal partnership on April 1, 1981. This petition was signed by the both of them on March 30, 1981 embodied with a compromise agreement in the separation of their properties. Such agreement was approved in June 9, 1981.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA is correct in stating that the
compromise agreement is effective only on June 9, 1981.
Ruling:
Yes. The CA is correct in holding that the
compromise agreement became effective only on June 9, 1981, the date when it was approved by the trial court, and not on March 30,1981 when it was signed by the parties. Under Article 190 of the Civil Code, "(i)n the absence of an express declaration in the marriage settlements, the separation of property between spouses during the marriage shall not take place save in virtue of a judicial order." Hence, the separation of property is not effected by the mere execution of the contract or agreement of the parties, but by the decree of the court approving the same. It, therefore, becomes effective on y upon judicial approval, without which it is void. Furthermore, Article 192 of said Code explicitly provides that the conjugal partnership is dissolved only upon the issuance of a decree of separation of property.
Consequently, the conjugal partnership of Benigno
and Rose Marie should be considered dissolved only on June 9, 1981 when the trial court approved their joint petition for voluntary dissolution of their conjugal partnership. Conformably thereto, the cash dividends declared on July 1, 1981 and July 25,1981 in the amount of P2,191.62 and P40,196.12, respectively, should pertain to Rose Marie; and that declared on April 2,5, 1981 in the amount of P37,126.30 ought to be paid to Benigno, pursuant to Paragraph 4 (c) of the compromise agreement which awards to Benigno the conjugal assets not otherwise specifically assigned to Rose Marie.