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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233365)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

RWR executed October 29, 1995; DoD executed July 27, 2004; Entry of judgment in the marriage nullity case indicating finality dated July 6, 2005; Eliodoro died June 28, 2008. RTC (Olongapo, Branch 72) decided in favor of Avegail on February 24, 2015; Court of Appeals affirmed on April 7, 2017; CA denied reconsideration August 15, 2017. Petition for review under Rule 45 filed by Nicxon to the Supreme Court; SC decision rendered March 24, 2021.

Applicable Law and Guiding Constitutional Framework

The Supreme Court applied provisions of the Family Code (1987) governing donations, property regimes and cohabitation (notably Articles 87, 89, 98, 105, 125, 147) and pertinent Civil Code provisions (Article 493 on co-ownership, Article 1490 re sales between spouses). Because the decision is dated 1990 or later, the 1987 Constitution underlies the judicial system within which these laws operate (as directed by the prompt).

Factual Background Relevant to the Legal Questions

The subject lot was originally registered in the names of Eliodoro and Adelita (TCT No. T-7396). Adelita executed an RWR in favor of Eliodoro in 1995 which was later inscribed on the title. Eliodoro executed a Deed of Donation in 2004 transferring the property to Nicxon, and TCT No. T-12547 issued to Nicxon. Adelita and Eliodoro were judicially declared to have a null marriage (void ab initio) in a decision dated June 15, 2005, with an entry of judgment reflecting finality as of July 6, 2005; that nullity was later the subject of an annulment-of-judgment petition which the CA denied and the Supreme Court refused further review in the related docket.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Nicxon raised (1) whether the CA and RTC violated res judicata by failing to treat the earlier marriage nullity decision as final and executory; (2) whether the courts erred in holding that the property regime was absolute community property (ACP) despite the nullity decision; and (3) whether the DoD in favor of Nicxon is valid.

Standard on Reviewing Factual Findings in Rule 45 and the Court’s Relaxation

Although Rule 45 ordinarily precludes review of factual findings, the Court relaxed that rule given a patent factual error: the dispositive factual point was whether the marriage nullity decision had become final and executory prior to Eliodoro’s death. The Court found that finality was established (entry of judgment dated July 6, 2005) and corroborated by the CA’s decision denying Adelita’s annulment-of-judgment petition. This demonstrable record error justified relief in the certiorari petition.

Legal Effect of the Final Nullity Ruling on the Marital Status and Property Regime

Because the marriage was judicially declared void ab initio and that judgment was final before the donor’s death, the parties were not validly married. Consequently, the Family Code provisions relevant to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage apply (Article 147), not the rules on absolute community property (Article 89) or conjugal partnership/ACP that govern valid marriages. The Court also noted that, even if the marriage had been valid, the applicable regime for a marriage celebrated in 1975 would have been conjugal partnership of gains (CPG) under transitional provisions (Article 105), so the RTC’s application of ACP was doubly incorrect.

Validity of the Renunciation and Waiver of Rights (RWR)

The RWR was declared void. Article 87 of the Family Code proscribes “every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage” and expressly extends the prohibition to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. The Court found no material or valuable consideration supporting the RWR; it partook of the nature of a gratuitous advantage and thus was void under Article 87 as applied to cohabiting persons or parties to a void marriage.

Validity of the Deed of Donation (DoD) to Nicxon

The DoD was held void. If the parties had been validly married, Articles 98 and 125 (Family Code) would have required spousal consent for donations of community or conjugal partnership property; lacking such consent, the donation would be void. Under the actual legal characterization—exclusive cohabitation or void marriage governed by Article 147—the property acquired during cohabitation is governed by special co-ownership rules. Article 147 expressly prohibits either party from encumbering or disposing inter vivos of his or her share in property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common without the consent of the other until after termination of cohabitation. Although ordinary co-ownership principles (Civil Code Article 493) would permit a co-owner to alienate his undivided share, Article 147 creates a specific exception—a “special co-ownership”—that bars such inter vivos dispositions during cohabitation. Consequently, Eliodoro’s donation of the subject property without Adelita’s consent was void in its entirety under Article 147.

Relationship Between Article 493 and Article 147

The Court explained that Article 493’s rule that a co-owner may alienate his undivided share

...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