Quiao vs Quiao

FACTS: Brigido Quiao (petitioner) and Rita Quiao (respondent) contracted marriage
in 1977. They had no separate properties prior to their marriage. During the course
of said marriage, they produced four children. In 2000, Rita filed a complaint against
Brigido for legal separation for cohabiting with another woman. Subsequently, the
RTC rendered a decision in 2005 declaring the legal separation of the parties
pursuant to Article 55. Save for one child (already of legal age), the three minor
children remains in the custody of Rita, who is the innocent spouse.

The properties accrued by the spouses shall be divided equally between them subject
to the respective legitimes of their children; however, Brigidos share of the net
profits earned by the conjugal partnership shall be forfeited in favor of their children
in accordance to par. 9 of Article 129 of the FC.

A few months thereafter, Rita filed a motion for execution, which was granted by
the trial court. By 2006, Brigido paid Rita with regards to the earlier decision; the
writ was partially executed.

After more than 9 months later, Brigido filed a motion for clarification asking the
RTC to define Net Profits Earned. In answer, the court held that the phrase
denotes the remainder of the properties of the parties after deducting the separate
properties of each of the spouses and debts.

Upon a motion for reconsideration, it initially set aside its previous decision stating
that NET PROFIT EARNED shall be computed in accordance with par. 4 of Article
102 of the FC. However, it later reverted to its original Order, setting aside the last
ruling.

HELD: CPG governs the property relations of spouses, having been married in
1977, under the effectivity of the NCC; but at the time of dissolution, the applicable
law is the FC so as far as the liquidation is concerned, what governs is Art. 129 in
relation to 63(2) of the FC; provisions shall retroact insofar as no vested rights are
impaired (Art. 256)

Petitioners right over half the common properties of CPG was not impaired by
operation of FC 129 and FC 63(2); he may lose this if there is due process and the
deprivation is founded in law and jurisprudence.

Net profits are defined only in FC 102 therefore, such provision applies in his case;
FC 102 supplies the definition of net profits that is applicable to FC 129

Net profits: the increase in value between the market value of the community
property at the time of the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the
time of its dissolution

Applying either 102 or 129 would lead to the conclusion that no property will be left
to the guilty spouse since, having brought no separate properties into the marriage,
there is nothing to return to any of them