G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014
MARIETTA N. BARRIDO, Petitioner, vs. LEONARDO V. NONATO, Respondent.

FACTS

During the marriage of respondent Leonardo V. Nonato and petitioner Marietta N. Barrido, they acquired a house and lot in Bacolod City covered by TCT No. T-140361. Their marriage was declared void on March 15, 1996, on the ground of psychological incapacity. Nonato subsequently asked Barrido for partition of the property, but she refused. Nonato filed a Complaint for partition before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bacolod City. Barrido claimed the property had already been sold to their children, Joseph Raymund and Joseph Leo, and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it was an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. The MTCC adjudicated the property to Barrido under Article 129 of the Family Code. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTCC and ordered the equitable partition of the property, reimbursement to the children for payments made on the property’s debts, and delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision, holding that the MTCC had jurisdiction as the property’s assessed value was only ₱8,080.00, and that while the RTC erroneously applied Article 129, the correct law was Article 147 of the Family Code, but the dispositive portion ordering partition was correct. Barrido’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the MTCC had jurisdiction over the complaint for partition.
2. Whether the property covered by TCT No. T-140361 remained conjugal or was already sold to the children.
3. Whether Article 129 of the Family Code applies to the case.

RULING

1. Yes, the MTCC had jurisdiction. Under Section 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, the MTCC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property where the assessed value does not exceed ₱20,000.00 outside Metro Manila. The subject property’s assessed value was ₱8,080.00, which is within the MTCC’s jurisdictional limit.
2. The property remained owned in common by the former spouses and was not sold to the children. The property was acquired during the marriage and is presumed to be obtained by their joint efforts. Barrido’s claim of sale to the children was based on a Deed of Sale that was not notarized, making it a private document inadmissible in evidence without proper authentication. Barrido failed to prove its due execution and authenticity. The title remained registered in the names of the former spouses.
3. Article 129 of the Family Code does not apply; Article 147 governs. Since the marriage was declared void under Article 36 (psychological incapacity), the property relations are governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, which applies to couples who are capacitated to marry, live exclusively as husband and wife, and are without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. Under this regime, property acquired during the union is presumed to be obtained by joint efforts and is owned in equal shares under the rules on co-ownership. The rules on liquidation of the conjugal partnership under Article 129 are irrelevant. The property, therefore, is owned in common by Nonato and Barrido in equal shares and should be partitioned according to the rules on co-ownership.
The petition was DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.