Barrido vs. Nonato

Article 147 of the Family Code governs the property relations of parties in a void marriage who are capacitated to marry each other and who lived exclusively as husband and wife, creating a regime of equal co-ownership where property acquired during the union is presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts, and upon dissolution, the property is divided according to the rules on co-ownership under the Civil Code rather than the liquidation procedures under Article 129 applicable to valid marriages.

Leonardo V. Nonato and Marietta N. Barrido contracted marriage and acquired a house and lot in Eroreco, Bacolod City during its subsistence. On March 15, 1996, their marriage was declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Following the declaration of nullity, Nonato demanded partition of the conjugal property, but Barrido refused, claiming the property had been sold to their children.

• The Void Marriage and Property Acquisition: Nonato and Barrido contracted marriage and during its subsistence acquired a house and lot located in Eroreco, Bacolod City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-140361. On March 15, 1996, the marriage was declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
• The Partition Suit: Following the declaration of nullity, Nonato requested partition of the subject property from Barrido, which she refused. On January 29, 2003, Nonato filed a Complaint for Partition before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bacolod City, Branch 3.
• Defense and Counterclaim: Barrido interposed an affirmative defense alleging that the subject property had already been sold to their common children, Joseph Raymund and Joseph Leo Nonato. She also moved for dismissal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, contending that the partition case was an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
• MTCC Ruling: On September 17, 2003, the MTCC rendered judgment applying Article 129 of the Family Code. It adjudicated the conjugal property to Barrido as the spouse with whom the majority of the common children chose to remain, and awarded her moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.
• RTC Appeal: Nonato appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 53. On July 21, 2004, the RTC reversed the MTCC decision. While it found that the MTCC correctly applied Article 129, it held that the MTCC committed reversible error in adjudicating the subject property to Barrido. The RTC ordered the parties to equitably partition the property, reimburse their children for advances made to pay debts on the property, and deliver the presumptive legitimes of the children pursuant to Article 51 of the Family Code.
• Court of Appeals Proceedings: Barrido appealed to the Court of Appeals. On November 16, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. It held that the MTCC had jurisdiction because the property's assessed value of ₱8,080.00 fell within the jurisdictional limit. The CA also noted that while the RTC erred in relying on Article 129 instead of Article 147 of the Family Code, the dispositive portion correctly ordered equitable partition. Barrido's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on January 24, 2007.

• Jurisdiction: Petitioner contended that the MTCC lacked jurisdiction over the partition case, arguing that it was an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore beyond the limited jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial courts.
• Ownership by Children: Petitioner maintained that ownership over the subject property had already been transferred to their children, Joseph Raymund and Joseph Leo Nonato, by virtue of a Deed of Sale, and that the property was no longer conjugal or subject to partition between the former spouses.
• Applicability of Article 129: Petitioner argued that Article 129 of the Family Code applied to the case, which would entitle her to the adjudication of the conjugal dwelling as the spouse with whom the majority of the common children chose to remain.

• Jurisdiction: Respondent countered that the MTCC had jurisdiction over the partition case pursuant to Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, because the assessed value of the property (₱8,080.00) did not exceed the ₱20,000.00 limit for civil actions outside Metro Manila.
• Applicability of Article 147: Respondent argued that Article 147, not Article 129, governed the property relations of the parties because their marriage had been declared void ab initio. Under this provision, the parties acquired the property in equal shares as co-owners, and upon dissolution of their cohabitation, the property should be partitioned according to the rules on co-ownership.
• Inadmissibility of Deed of Sale: Respondent contended that the alleged Deed of Sale to the children was inadmissible in evidence because it lacked notarization and remained a private document that was not properly authenticated.

• Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court: Whether the MTCC had jurisdiction over the action for partition of the subject property.
• Governing Property Regime: Whether Article 147 or Article 129 of the Family Code applied to the property relations of the parties whose marriage was declared void for psychological incapacity.
• Validity of Alleged Sale: Whether the subject property had been validly sold to the parties' children and was therefore no longer subject to partition between the former spouses.

• Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court: The MTCC had jurisdiction over the partition case. Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, grants metropolitan and municipal trial courts exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed ₱20,000.00 (₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila). The subject property's assessed value of ₱8,080.00 clearly fell within this jurisdictional threshold.
• Governing Property Regime: Article 147 of the Family Code, not Article 129, governed the property relations of the parties. Article 147 applies when: (1) the parties are capacitated to marry each other; (2) they live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and (3) their union is without the benefit of marriage or their marriage is void. All these elements were present in this case. Under this regime, property acquired during the union is presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts and is owned in equal shares. Upon termination of cohabitation, the co-ownership is liquidated according to the rules on co-ownership under the Civil Code, not pursuant to the liquidation procedures for conjugal partnerships under Article 129, which applies only to valid and voidable marriages.
• Validity of Alleged Sale: The property remained co-owned by the parties and subject to partition. The alleged Deed of Sale to the children was inadmissible in evidence because it lacked notarization and remained a private document. Without proper authentication, the document could not prove the transfer of ownership, especially since the title to the property remained registered in the names of the former spouses.

• Article 147 Co-ownership in Void Marriages — When a man and woman who are capacitated to marry each other live exclusively as husband and wife under a void marriage, their property relations are governed by Article 147 of the Family Code. This provision establishes a regime of equal co-ownership where: (1) wages and salaries are owned in equal shares; (2) property acquired through work or industry is governed by rules on co-ownership; (3) property acquired during cohabitation is presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts; and (4) a party who did not participate in acquisition is deemed to have contributed jointly if his or her efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and household. Upon termination of cohabitation, the liquidation of this co-ownership is governed by the rules on co-ownership under the Civil Code, not by Article 129 which applies to the dissolution of conjugal partnerships in valid or voidable marriages.
• Jurisdiction of First Level Courts in Real Actions — Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed ₱20,000.00 outside Metro Manila or ₱50,000.00 within Metro Manila, pursuant to Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 7691.
• Effect of Lack of Notarization on Documents — A document that does not bear the notarial seal of a notary public remains a private document and cannot be converted into a public document. As such, it is inadmissible in evidence unless properly authenticated pursuant to the Rules of Court.

• "This particular kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no illegal impediment to marry each other, exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage." — This passage defines the scope and applicability of Article 147 of the Family Code.
• "The rules which are set up to govern the liquidation of either the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains, the property regimes recognized for valid and voidable marriages, are irrelevant to the liquidation of the co-ownership that exists between common-law spouses or spouses of void marriages." — This articulates the fundamental distinction between the property regimes governing valid marriages (Articles 96, 129) and void marriages (Article 147).
• "Without the notarial seal, a document remains to be private and cannot be converted into a public document, making it inadmissible in evidence unless properly authenticated." — This establishes the evidentiary requirement for documents purporting to transfer real property rights.

• Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City, 328 Phil. 1289 (1996) — Controlling precedent establishing that Article 147, not Article 129, governs the property relations of parties whose marriage is declared void ab initio for psychological incapacity, and that the liquidation of such co-ownership is governed by the rules on co-ownership under the Civil Code rather than the liquidation procedures for conjugal partnerships.
• Mercado-Fehr v. Fehr, 460 Phil. 445 (2003) — Cited for the definition of "capacitated" under Article 147 as pertaining to the legal capacity to contract marriage, and for the proposition that efforts in the care and maintenance of the family constitute contribution to the acquisition of common property.
• Agapay v. Palang, 342 Phil. 302 (1997) — Cited for the principle that efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household are regarded as contributions to the acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income.
• Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos, 499 Phil. 345 (2005) and Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corporation, 554 Phil. 343 (2007) — Cited for the rule that documents lacking notarization remain private documents and are inadmissible in evidence without proper authentication.

• Article 147, Family Code — Governs the property relations of parties capacitated to marry each other who live exclusively as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage; establishes equal co-ownership of property acquired during cohabitation.
• Article 129, Family Code — Governs the procedure for dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime upon the termination of valid or voidable marriages; held inapplicable to void marriages.
• Article 36, Family Code — Provides for the declaration of marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
• Section 33(3), Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 — Grants metropolitan and municipal trial courts exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed ₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila).
• Article 51, Family Code — Provides for the delivery of presumptive legitimes to common children upon the partition of properties.

Diosdado M. Peralta (Acting Chairperson and ponente), Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Francis H. Jardeleza.