MARYWIN ALBANO-SALES VS MAYOR REYNOLAN T.

SALES AND COURT OF APPEALS

GR. NO. 174803 JULY 13, 2009

DOCTRINE:
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.
FACTS:
The present controversy stemmed from civil case filed by Marywin Albano Sales against her
husband, Mayor Reynolan T. Sales, for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership and
separation of properties, and civil case filed by Mayor Reynolan T. Sales for the declaration of
nullity of their marriage. The two cases were consolidated and tried jointly.
On January 4, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment declaring the marriage of Marywin and
Reynolan void on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity. It also ordered the
dissolution of their conjugal partnership and directed them to liquidate, partition and
distribute their common property within 60 days from receipt of decision, and comply with
FC 50, 51, and 52 as may be applicable.
On June 16, 2003, after the decision became final, Marywin filed for execution and a
manifestation listing her assets with Reynolan for partition. Reynolan opposed the motion
arguing that the RTC Decision had ordered the distribution of their common properties
without specifying what they were. He also claimed that Marywin has no share in the
properties she specified because said properties were the fruits solely of his industry. He
added that their property relations should not be governed by the rules of co-ownership
because they did not live together as husband and wife. He also alleged that Marywin
appropriated the rentals of his properties and even disposed one of them without his
consent, in violation of Article 147 of the Family Code. Accordingly, he prayed for the
deferral of the resolution of the motion for execution, maintaining that no partition of
properties can be had until after all the matters he raised are resolved after due notice and
hearing.
On September 3, 2003, RTC set the case for hearing on September 25, 2003 and ordered the
reception of evidence on claims.
On November 24, 2003, Marywin filed a reiterative motion for execution to implement the
decision and to order partition of common properties.
On November 28, 2003, reiterative motion was heard in the absence of Reynolan and his
counsel. RTC issued an order approving the proposed project of partition. Clerk of court
ordered to execute deeds of conveyance to distribute 8 town house units.

On December 16, 2003, Reynolan moved to consider RTCs order, prayed for its reversal,
and reinstatement of the order of reception of evidence before partition. Marywin opposed
Reynolans motion on the ground that issues of alleged fraudulent sale and non-accounting
of rentals were already waived by Reynolan when he failed to set them up as compulsory
counterclaims in the case.
On April 12, 2004, RTC denied Reynolans motion for reconsideration. t ruled that reception
of evidence is no longer necessary because the parties were legally married prior to its
nullification and the fact that they begot a son whom they raised together proved that their
connubial relations were more than merely transient.
On July 26, 2006, CA rules in favor of Reynolan and remanded the case to lower court for
reception of evidence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred when it entertained respondents appeal from an order granting the
issuance
of a writ of execution

RULING:
NO.
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. The issue on the validity of
their marriage has long been settled in the main decision and may no longer be the subject
of review.
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.
Since the RTC resolved these matters in its Orders dated November 28, 2003 and April 12,
2004, disregarding its previous order calling for the reception of evidence, said orders
became final orders as it finally disposes of the issues concerning the partition of the parties
common properties. As such, it may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the Court of
Appeals via ordinary appeal
The decision of the CA is affirmed and the instant case is remanded to the lower court for
further reception of evidence.