G.R. No. 184467 - Navia vs. Pardico

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184467)

Key Dates and Lower-Court Rulings

Marriage declared void: March 15, 1996. Complaint for partition filed by respondent: January 29, 2003 (MTCC, Bacolod City, Branch 3). MTCC decision (adjudicating the conjugal dwelling to petitioner and awarding damages): September 17, 2003. RTC reversal ordering equitable partition, reimbursement to children for advances, and delivery of presumptive legitimes: July 21, 2004. CA affirmed the RTC decision: November 16, 2006 (motion for reconsideration denied January 24, 2007). Supreme Court decision denying the petition: October 20, 2014.

Procedural Posture and Claims Presented on Review

Respondent instituted a complaint for partition after the marriage was declared void; petitioner defended on grounds that the lot had been sold to the children and challenged the MTCC’s jurisdiction on the ground that a partition action is incapable of pecuniary estimation. On appeal, petitioner assigned three principal errors to the CA decision: (1) that the MTCC lacked jurisdiction; (2) that the lot was no longer conjugal because of an alleged deed of sale to the children; and (3) that Article 129 of the Family Code was inapplicable and should have governed the disposition.

Jurisdictional Determination under BP Blg. 129, Section 33

The Court analyzed jurisdiction under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 33, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, which vests MTCCs with exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00 outside Metro Manila (P50,000.00 in Metro Manila), exclusive of interest, damages and costs. The assessed value of the subject property was P8,080.00, well below the statutory threshold. The Court therefore held that the MTCC rightly assumed jurisdiction and that petitioner’s contention on lack of jurisdiction was without merit.

Legal Characterization of Property Relations after a Void Marriage

The Court distinguished the rules applicable to dissolution of the conjugal partnership or community from those governing property relations arising from void marriages or cohabitation. Article 147 of the Family Code governs the property regime applicable when parties who are capacitated to marry live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without benefit of marriage. The operative elements of Article 147 are: (1) legal capacity to marry, (2) exclusive cohabitation as husband and wife, and (3) a void marriage or lack of marital benefit. When these elements are established, properties acquired by both through their work or industry are governed by the rules on co-ownership, with a presumption of equal ownership in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Application of Article 147 and Presumption of Co-ownership

The Court found all elements of Article 147 present: the parties were capacitated to marry, they lived exclusively together as husband and wife, and their marriage was held void under Article 36 for psychological incapacity. Under Article 147, property acquired during their union is prima facie presumed to be the product of joint efforts and owned in equal shares. Care and household maintenance by the non‑earning spouse is recognized as a contributory effort equivalent to direct participation in acquisition. Consequently, the property in question was subject to equal co-ownership and division under co‑ownership rules rather than the liquidation rules applicable to valid conjugal partnerships or community property regimes.

Assessment of the RTC’s Use of Family Code Provisions and the CA’s Ruling

Although the MTCC had applied Article 129 of the Family Code in adjudicating the conjugal dwelling to petitioner, the RTC reversed and ordered equitable partition. The CA noted that the RTC erred in characterizing the disposition under Article 129 instead of Article 147, but held that the dispositive relief—equitable partition of the property—was correct. The Supreme Court agreed with the result: Article 147 governs the property relations in this situation, and the said property should be partitioned according to co-ownership principles.

Evidentiary Treatment of the Alleged Deed of Sale to the Children

Petitioner asserted that a Deed of Sale had transferred ownership to their children. The Court examined this claim and emphasized that the title remained registered in the names of the spouses. The Deed of Sale presented by petitioner was not notarized and was annexed only to a position paper; it was not properly authenticated. Under the authorities cited, a private document lacking the notarial seal remains private and cannot be converted into a public document; it is inadmissible in evidence unless duly authenticated.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184467)

Procedural History

Petition for Review to the Supreme Court by petitioner Marietta N. Barrido questioning the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated November 16, 2006 and its Resolution dated January 24, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00235.
Case originated as a Complaint for partition filed by respondent Leonardo V. Nonato on January 29, 2003 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bacolod City, Branch 3.
MTCC rendered a Decision dated September 17, 2003 adjudicating the conjugal dwelling to petitioner Marietta Nonato and awarding damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to defendant (Barrido).
Nonato appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacolod City, Branch 53. RTC rendered a Decision dated July 21, 2004 reversing the MTCC and ordering equitable partition and related reliefs.
CA affirmed the RTC Decision on November 16, 2006; Barrido’s Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was denied on January 24, 2007.
Barrido filed the present Petition for Review to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rendered its Decision on October 20, 2014, denying the petition and affirming the CA Decision and Resolution.

Facts

During the marriage of Leonardo V. Nonato and Marietta N. Barrido, they acquired a house and lot located in Eroreco, Bacolod City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-140361.
Their marriage was declared void on March 15, 1996 on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
After the annulment, Nonato requested partition of the property; Barrido refused, prompting Nonato to file the Complaint for partition.
Barrido asserted as affirmative defense that the subject property had been sold to their children, Joseph Raymund and Joseph Leo, and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of the MTCC on the ground that partition is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The assessed value of the subject property was P8,080.00 as reflected in the records.
A Deed of Sale was purportedly executed in favor of the children, but the document was not notarized and remained annexed only to Barrido’s position paper; title on record remained in the names of the former spouses.

MTCC Decision (September 17, 2003)

Applied Article 129 of the Family Code and adjudicated the conjugal property (house and lot covered by TCT No. T-140361) to defendant Marietta Nonato, as the spouse with whom the majority of common children chose to remain.
Granted defendant’s counterclaim and ordered plaintiff to pay defendant P10,000.00 as moral damages for mental anguish and unnecessary inconvenience, P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, attorney’s fees of P2,000.00, and litigation expenses of P575.00.
MTCC thus awarded the conjugal dwelling to Barrido and assessed monetary damages and costs.

RTC Decision (July 21, 2004)

Reversed and set aside the MTCC Decision.
Ordered: (1) equitable partition of the house and lot covered by TCT No. T-140361; (2) reimbursement to Joseph Raymund and Joseph Leo Nonato of amounts advanced in payment of debts and obligations of TCT No. T-140361 with Philippine National Bank; and (3) delivery of the presumptive legitimes of Joseph Raymund and Joseph Leo Nonato pursuant to Article 51 of the Family Code.
The RTC found that although MTCC applied Article 129, adjudication to Barrido was a reversible error, warranting equitable partition.

Court of Appeals Decision (November 16, 2006) and Resolution (January 24, 2007)

Affirmed the RTC Decision ordering equitable partition.
Held that the property’s assessed value of P8,080.00 placed the action within MTCC jurisdiction (civil actions involving title/possession/partition where assessed value does not exceed P20,000 outside Metro Manila).
Noted that although the RTC erred in relying on Article 129 instead of Article 147 of the Family Code, the dispositive portion correctly ordered equitable partition; hence affirmation was proper.
Denied Barrido’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.

Issues Raised by Petitioner (Assignments of Error)

I. Whether the CA erred in holding that the MTCC had jurisdiction to try the present case.
II. Whether the CA erred in holding that the lot covered by TCT No. T-140361 is conjugal after being sold to the children, Joseph Leo Nonato and Joseph Raymund Nonato.
III. Whether the CA erred in holding that Article 129 of the Family Code has no application in the present case, on the assu