NISCE Unions under FC 147

Barrido v. Nonato

October 20, 2014 G.R. No. 176492 PERALTA, J.

DOCTRINE

The particular kind of co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code 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. The term "capacitated" in the first paragraph of the provision pertains to
the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage.

FACTS

- While married, Marietta Barrido (petitioner) and Leonardo Nonato (respondent) acquired a property situated in
Eroreco, Bacolod City, consisting of a house and lot. Subsequently, their marriage was declared null and void due to
psychological incapacity. Nonato asked Barrido for partition but the latter refused. Nonato filed a complaint to the
MTC.

- Barrido’s defense is that the subject property had already been sold to their children. She also moved for the
dismissal of the complaint because the Bacolod MTCC has no jurisdiction since the partition is an action incapable
of pecuniary estimation.

- The MTCC adjudicated the property to Barrido, the spouse to whom the children chose to remain with. Nonato was
also ordered to pay moral damages for the mental anguish brought by the suit.

- The RTC reversed the ruling of the MTCC. It found that even though the MTCC aptly applied Article 129 of the
Family Code, it made a reversible error in adjudicating the subject property to Barrido. The court ordered for the
partition of the property and the reimbursement of the children’s payment.

- The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The court also stated that the MTCC had jurisdiction over the case because
the value of the property was only P 8,000.

- Barrido brought the case to SC for a petition for review.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the subject property is still considered as a conjugal property after being sold to the children.
2. Whether or not Article 129 of the Family Code applicable to the case.
3. What are the effects of declaration of nullity of marriage on the grounds of Article 36 of the Family Code?

RULING
1. ​Yes​, it is still considered a conjugal property since it was acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. Barrido
also failed to prove the execution and authenticity of the sale of the property to their children because the document
does not bear a notarization of a notary public. Because of this, the document remains to be private and
inadmissible unless properly authenticated.

Art. 147 of the Family Code states that ​when a man and a woman live exclusively with each other as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, the property acquired by both of them through their
work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. ​Any property acquired during the union is prima
facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of
the property shall be considered as having contributed to the same jointly if said party's efforts consisted in the care
and maintenance of the family household. 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 or work or
industry.

2. ​No​, Article 129 is not applicable to the case. The marriage was declared null and void and Article 147 should be
used to determine the effects of void marriages on spouses’ property relations.​The Court held that the court a quo
did not commit a reversible error in utilizing Article 147 of the Family Code and in ruling that the former spouses own
the family home and all their common property in equal shares, as well as in concluding that, in the liquidation and
partition of the property that they owned in common, the provisions on co-ownership under the Civil Code should
aptly prevail.

3. The effect is what is stated in FC Art. 147. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they
lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned
by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other
party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts
consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

NISCE Unions under FC 148

Bienvenido v. CA

October 24, 1994 G.R. No. 111717 MENDOZA, J.

DOCTRINE

The exceptions laid down by Article 83 of the Civil Code cannot be invoked in remarriage of the spouse who left
thus, an action for declaration of the nullity of a donation can only be brought by the innocent spouse.

FACTS
- Aurelio P. Camacho, while married to Consejo Velasco, contracted another marriage with Luisita C. Camacho
(respondent) with whom he had a child with, Chito Camacho (respondent).

- Aurelio and Luisita grew distant. Aurelio, presenting himself as single, met Nenita T. Bienvenido (petitioner) with
whom he married and lived with until his death. They lived in a house and lot that Aurelio bought in Delgado Street,
Quezon City.

- After Aurelio’s death, Luisita and her son Chito filed a case in the RTC seeking the annulment of the sale of the
property to petitioner and the payment to them of damages. Luisita alleged that the deed of sale was a forgery and
that it was executed in fraud since she was the legitimate wife of Aurelio.

-Petitioner claimed that she and the late Aurelio had purchased the property in question using their joint funds which
they had accumulated after living together and that the sale of the property was with respondents’ consent; and that
she was a purchaser in good faith.

- RTC rendered a decision upholding the sale of the property to the petitioner however, the CA reversed such
decision and declared respondents to be the owners of the house and lot in dispute. Hence a petition for review of
the decision of the CA was filed by the petitioner.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the marriage between Aurelio and Luisita is valid.

2. Whether or not the subject property belongs to the conjugal partnership of the second marriage between
Aurelio and Luisita.

RULING

1. No, since Aurelio had a valid and subsisting marriage to his first wife, Consejo Velaso, his subsequent marriage
to respondent Luisita was void for being bigamous.

2. No, there is no basis for holding that the subject property belongs to the conjugal partnership since there was no
such valid partnership in the first place.

The first exception laid down by Art. 83 of the Civil Code for the validity of contracting a second marriage refers to
the subsequent marriage of the abandoned spouse ​and ​not the remarriage of the deserting spouse​​, after the period
of seven years had lapsed. Aurelio abandoned his first wife and married Luisita. Thus, Luisita cannot claim that the
subject property forms part of their conjugal properties since the marriage to Aurelio is void.

Furthermore, it is stated in Article 148 of the Family Code that if one of the parties to whom the co-ownership of
conjugal properties has accrued to acted in bad faith, his or her share shall be forfeited. In the case at bar, there
was nothing to show that the respondent knew Aurelio to be married to Luisita.

The CA’s ruling based on Art. 739(1) of the Civil Code which declares donations made between persons who are
guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation to be void cannot be applied. There was no basis to
hold that Nenita was not a buyer in good faith of the property because she ought to have known that Aurelio was
married to Luisita. Hence, the deed of sale executed in Nenita’s name is deemed valid.