<On

the property regime of the marriage> <Barrido v. Nonato> <Hinanay>

<GR No. 176492.> <October 20, 2014> <Peralta, J.>
KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

RECIT-READY / SUMMARY
For the Court's resolution is a Petition for Review filed by petitioner Marietta N. Barrido questioning the Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA), dated November 16, 2006, and its Resolution dated January 24, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00235. The CA
affirmed the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 53, dated July 21, 2004, in Civil Case No. 03-
12123, which ordered the partition of the subject property. The Supreme Court held that the property is subject to co-
ownership since they both agree that they acquired the subject property during the subsistence of their marriage and it was
still registered under their names.

FACTS
In the marriage of Marietta Barrido (petitioner) and Leonardo Nonato (respondent), they were able to acquire a
property situated in Erocero, Bacolod City consisting of a house and lot, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-140361.
March 15, 1996: their marriage was declared null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Nonato asked Barrido for partition but the latter refused which prompted Nonato to file a complaint for partition
before the MTCC of Bacolod City.
Barrido claims that the property had been sold to their children Joseph Raymund and Joseph Leo. She moved for
the dismissal of the complaint because the MTCC lacked jurisdiction, the partition case being an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
September 17, 2003: The Bacolod MTCC applied Art 129 of the FC and ruled in favor of Barrido because the
majority of the common children chose to remain with her and she was granted moral damages of P10,000,
attorney fees of P2,000 and litigation expenses of P575.
July 21, 2004: Nonato on appeal to the RTC which reversed the ruling of the MTCC. It ordered the equitable
partition of the house and lot, to reimburse the sons of the amount advanced by them in payment of debts and
obligation of the TCT with PNB and to deliver the presumptive legitimes of their sons pursuant to Art 51 of the FC.
Nov 16, 2006: CA affirmed the RTC decision and held that since the propertys value was only P8,080, it fell within
MTCCs jurisdiction. Also, although the RTC erred in relying on Art 129 of the FC, instead of Art 147, the dispositive
portion of its decision still correctly ordered the equitable partition of the property.
ISSUES / RATIO ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED
WON the MTCC had jurisdiction to try the case
Art 147, FC
WON the CA erred in holding the house and lot is Art 129, FC
conjugal after being sold to the children

WON Art 129 is applicable in the case
HELD

The petition lacks merit. Petition denied.

The propertys assessed value was merely P8,080, an amount that does not exceed the required limit of P20,000 for civil
actions outside Metro Manila to fall within the jurisdiction of the MTCC. Therefore, the lower court correctly took
cognizance of the instant case. Although their marriage was declared void for psychological incapacity, during their
marriage, the conjugal partnership regime governed their property relations. Art 147 states the rules on co-ownership in
cases where the husband and wife live exclusively with each other without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage.

Here, the former spouses both agree that they acquired the subject property during the subsistence of their marriage. Thus,
it shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be jointly owned by them in
equal shares. Barrido, however, claims that the ownership over the property in question is already vested on their children,
by virtue of a Deed of Sale. But aside from the title to the property still being registered in the names of the former spouses,
said document of safe does not bear a notarization of a notary public. It must be noted that 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. Unfortunately, Barrido failed to prove its due execution and authenticity. In fact, she merely
annexed said Deed of Sale to her position paper. Therefore, the subject property remains to be owned in common by Nonato
and Barrido, which should be divided in accordance with the rules on co-ownership.

 <On the property regime of the marriage> <Barrido v. Nonato> <Hinanay>
<GR No. 176492.> <October 20, 2014> <Peralta, J.>
OPINION (CONCURRING) OPINION (DISSENTING)