Title
Perez, Jr. vs. Perez-Senerpida
Case
G.R. No. 233365
Decision Date
Mar 24, 2021
Spouses' void marriage led to property dispute; RWR and DoD invalidated due to Article 147 co-ownership rules, requiring mutual consent for property disposition.
dispute
registered owners
parcel of land

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233365)

Factual Background

The subject property was registered in the names of spouses Eliodoro Q. Perez and Adelita M. Perez as Lot 2 Block 9, LRC Psc-13291, covered by TCT No. T-7396. Out of that marriage were born Avegail and Adonis Perez. Prior to that marriage, Eliodoro had children from a prior marriage, including Nicxon Perez, Sr., who fathered petitioner Nicxon L. Perez, Jr. On October 29, 1995, Adelita executed a document denominated Renounciation and Waiver of Rights (RWR) in favor of Eliodoro, which was later inscribed on the title on July 20, 2004. On July 27, 2004, Eliodoro executed a Deed of Donation (DoD) donating the parcel to petitioner Nicxon; TCT No. T-7396 was cancelled and TCT No. T-12547 was issued in Nicxon’s name. Eliodoro died June 28, 2008.

Procedural History in the RTC and CA

On September 30, 2010, Avegail filed before RTC-Branch 72 an action for Annulment of Donation and Title with a prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, alleging prejudice to her legitime from the RWR and the DoD. The RTC, after trial, rendered a Decision dated February 24, 2015 annulling the RWR, annulling the DoD, nullifying and cancelling TCT No. T-12547 and ordering issuance of another title in the name of Eliodoro Perez. Nicxon appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA, in a Decision dated April 7, 2017, dismissed Nicxon’s appeal and affirmed the RTC. Nicxon’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated August 15, 2017. Nicxon then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Parallel proceedings concerning the nullity of marriage

Separately, Eliodoro had earlier filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Adelita under Art. 36 of the Family Code. RTC-Branch 73 rendered a Marriage Nullity Decision dated June 15, 2005 declaring the marriage void ab initio. An Entry of Judgment issued on July 11, 2005 stated that the decision became final and executory as of July 6, 2005. Adelita later filed, on July 5, 2011, an Annulment of Judgment Petition under Rule 47 which the CA referred for reception of further evidence and which the CA subsequently denied in a Decision dated September 22, 2015; the denial was affirmed by this Court’s Resolution of March 16, 2016.

Issues Presented

The Petition pressed three principal issues: whether the lower courts violated the rule on res judicata by not treating the June 15, 2005 Marriage Nullity Decision as final and executory; whether the lower courts erred in holding that the property regime between Eliodoro and Adelita was the absolute community property (ACP) despite the nullity decision; and whether the DoD executed by Eliodoro in favor of Nicxon is valid.

Parties’ Contentions

Nicxon contended that the marriage nullity decision had become final prior to Eliodoro’s death and therefore the property relations between Eliodoro and Adelita were governed by Art. 147 of the Family Code and the rules on co-ownership, not by Art. 89 on absolute community property; he argued further that under co-ownership his grandfather could donate his undivided share and that the RWR was valid. Avegail argued that Adelita was a co-owner whose waiver and the subsequent donation prejudiced her legitime and that the RWR and DoD were void for want of consent and for being gratuitous transfers between spouses or persons living as husband and wife without benefit of marriage.

Rulings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals

The RTC found the action meritorious and annulled the RWR and the DoD, nullified and cancelled the title issued to Nicxon, and ordered issuance of title in the name of Eliodoro Perez. The trial court applied the ACP doctrine and held the RWR to be a prohibited waiver under Art. 89 and the DoD void for lack of the spouse’s conformity under Art. 98. The CA affirmed on the same grounds, concluding that at the time of the donation Eliodoro remained legally married to Adelita and that Art. 87 and Art. 89 rendered the RWR void as a gratuitous disposition between spouses.

Supreme Court’s disposition

The Petition was partly meritorious but ultimately denied. The Court affirmed the CA Decision dated April 7, 2017 in CA-G.R. CV No. 105393. The RTC Decision dated February 24, 2015 was modified: the nullification and cancellation of the RWR, the DoD, and TCT No. T-12547 were ordered to remain, but the Court directed that another title be issued in the names of Eliodoro Q. Perez and Adelita M. Perez rather than in Eliodoro’s name alone.

Legal Basis and Reasoning for the Court’s Judgment

The Court first corrected a patent factual error in the findings of the RTC and the CA: the Marriage Nullity Decision dated June 15, 2005 became final and executory as of July 6, 2005. The CA’s denial in CA-G.R. SP No. 120119 and this Court’s denial of review confirmed the finality of the Marriage Nullity Decision prior to Eliodoro’s death. Because the marriage was judicially declared void ab initio pursuant to Art. 36 of the Family Code, the property regime of ACP did not govern the parties’ relations. The Court observed that even had the marriage remained valid, the proper pre-Family Code regime would have been the conjugal partnership of gains under Article 105, not ACP.

The Court held that the RWR executed by Adelita in 1995 was void pursuant to Art. 87 of the Family Code, which proscribes donations or grants of gratuitous advantage between spouses and extends the prohibition to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. The Court relied on the principle announced in Matabuena v. Cervantes that the policy behind prohibiting donations between spouses must extend to common-law unions to prevent undue influence and exploitation.

Turning to the DoD, the Court analyzed the applicable rule for property acquired during exclusive cohabitation or under a void marriage under Art. 147 of the Family Code. Article 147 governs such properties by the rules on co-ownership and contains the specific prohibition that “Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.” The Court rejected petitioner’s reliance on ordinary co-ownership principles under Civil Code Art. 493 insofar as they would permit alienation of an undivided share by one co-owner without consent of the other. Article 147 creates a special co-ownership in which inter vivos dispositions of a share are proscribed during cohabitation. The Court concluded that a don

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms