Barrido Vs Nonato
Barrido Vs Nonato
Barrido Vs Nonato
Case Digest
TOPIC: Effects of final judgement declaring nullity- Property Regime of the marriage
DOCTRINE:
CASE Number (including date):
CASE Name: Barrido vs Nonato
Ponente
FACTS
In the course of the marriage of respondent Leonardo V. Nonato and petitioner Marietta N. Barrido,they
were able to acquire a property situated in Eroreco, Bacolod City, consisting of a house and lot
On March 15, 1996, their marriage was declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Nonato asked Barrido for partition, but the latter refused.
on January 29, 2003, Nonato filed a Complaint for partition
Barrido claimed, by way of affirmative defense, that the subject property had already been sold to their
children, Joseph Raymund and Joseph Leo.
Lower court used Art 129 to
1.
ISSUES
This particular kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no illegal impedimentto
marry each other, exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit
of marriage. It is clear, therefore, that for Article 147 to operate, the man and the woman: (1) must be
capacitated to marry each other; (2) live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and (3) their union
is without the benefit of marriage or their marriage is void. Here, all these elements are present. The term
"capacitated" in the first paragraph of the provision pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract
marriage. Any impediment to marry has not been shown to have existed on the part of either Nonato or
Barrido. They lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife. However, their marriage was found to
be void under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.
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 sale 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.
o
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.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated
November 16, 2006, as well as its Resolution dated January 24, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00235, are hereby
AFFIRMED.