Thus, from the foregoing facts and law, it is clear that what governs the property relations of the petitioner and of the respondent is conjugal partnership of gains. And under this property relation, "the husband and the wife place in a common fund the fruits of their separate property and the income from their work or industry."56 The husband and wife also own in common all the property of the conjugal partnership of gains.57Second, since at the time of the dissolution of the petitioner and the respondent's marriage the operative law is already the Family Code, the same applies in the instant case and the applicable law in so far as the liquidation of the conjugal partnership assets and liabilities is concerned is Article 129 of the Family Code in relation to Article 63(2) of the Family Code. The latter provision is applicable because according to Article 256 of the Family Code "[t]his Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other law."58Now, the petitioner asks: Was his vested right over half of the common properties of the conjugal partnership violated when the trial court forfeited them in favor of his children pursuant to Articles 63(2) and 129 ofthe Family Code?We respond in the negative.Indeed, the petitioner claims that his vested rights have been impaired, arguing: "As earlier adverted to, the petitioner acquired vested rights overhalf of the conjugal properties, the same being owned in common by the spouses. If the provisions of the Family Code are to be given retroactive application to the point of authorizing the forfeiture of the petitioner's share in the net remainder of the conjugal partnership properties, the same impairs his rights acquired prior to the effectivity of the Family Code."59 In other words, the petitioner is saying that since the property relations between the spouses is governed by the regime of Conjugal Partnership of Gains under the Civil Code, the petitioner acquired vested rights over half of the properties of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains, pursuant to Article 143 of the Civil Code, which provides: "All property of the conjugal partnership of gains is owned in common by the husband and wife."60 Thus, since he is one of the owners of the properties covered by the conjugal partnership of gains, he has a vested right over half of thesaid properties, even after the promulgation of the Family Code; and he insisted that no provision under the Family Code may deprive him of this vested right by virtue of Article 256 of the Family Code which prohibits retroactive application of the Family Code when it will prejudice a person's vested right.
However, the petitioner's claim of vested right is not one which is written on stone. In Go, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,61we define and explained "vested right" in the following manner:A vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent do not depend upon events foreign to the will of the holder, or to the exercise of