Property Division After Void Marriages: The Barrido v. Nonato Ruling

When a marriage is declared void, one of the most contentious issues that former spouses face is how to divide the properties they acquired during their union. The Supreme Court's decision in Barrido v. Nonato (G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014) provides clear guidance on this matter, ruling that properties acquired during a void marriage are governed by the rules on co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code, not by the rules on conjugal partnership.

The Facts of the Case

Leonardo Nonato and Marietta Barrido were married and acquired a house and lot in Bacolod City during their marriage. On March 15, 1996, their marriage was declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. When Nonato sought partition of the property, Barrido refused. Nonato then filed a complaint for partition before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bacolod City.

Barrido raised two main defenses: first, that the MTCC lacked jurisdiction over the case, and second, that the property had already been sold to their children through a Deed of Sale.

The Jurisdictional Issue

The Supreme Court rejected Barrido's claim that the MTCC lacked jurisdiction. Under Section 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, MTCCs have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00 (or P50,000.00 in Metro Manila).

Since the subject property had an assessed value of only P8,080.00, the MTCC correctly took cognizance of the case. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction in real actions is determined by the assessed value of the property, not by the nature of the action as one incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Article 147 vs. Article 129

The central legal question was which provision of the Family Code should govern the property relations of spouses whose marriage is void. The MTCC had applied Article 129, which provides the procedure for liquidation of the conjugal partnership regime, including the rule that the conjugal dwelling should be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose to remain.

The Supreme Court clarified that Article 147, not Article 129, applies to void marriages. Article 147 provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other live exclusively as husband and wife under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares, and property acquired through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

The Court explained that the rules on liquidation of the conjugal partnership or absolute community are "irrelevant to the liquidation of the co-ownership that exists between common-law spouses or spouses of void marriages." Under Article 147, properties acquired during the union are presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts, and both parties own them in equal shares.

The Unnotarized Deed of Sale

Barrido claimed that the property had already been sold to their children through a Deed of Sale. However, the Supreme Court noted that the title to the property remained registered in the names of the former spouses, and the Deed of Sale was not notarized.

Under the rules of evidence, a document that is not notarized remains a private document and is inadmissible in evidence unless properly authenticated. Since Barrido merely annexed the Deed of Sale to her position paper without proving its due execution and authenticity, the Court disregarded it. The property therefore remained owned in common by the former spouses.

Practical Takeaways

• Void marriages are governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, which creates a co-ownership regime where property acquired during the union is owned in equal shares, regardless of which spouse actually earned or acquired it.

• Jurisdiction in real actions depends on assessed value. Under BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, first-level courts have jurisdiction over real actions where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00 (P50,000.00 in Metro Manila).

• Unnotarized documents are generally inadmissible in evidence unless their due execution and authenticity are properly established. A Deed of Sale that is not notarized and not properly authenticated cannot defeat a claim of co-ownership.

• The rules on conjugal partnership liquidation (Article 129) do not apply to void marriages. The presumptive legitimes of children and the rules on the family dwelling under Article 129 are not relevant where Article 147 governs.

• Contributions to the family and household count as joint efforts. A spouse who did not directly earn income but cared for the family and household is deemed to have contributed jointly to the acquisition of common property.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.