When a marriage is declared void due to psychological incapacity, the division of property acquired during the union is governed by specific rules. This case clarifies that such properties are treated as co-owned, requiring an equitable partition between the parties. This ruling underscores the importance of understanding property rights in the dissolution of marriages, particularly when the union is deemed void from the beginning.

From Spouses to Co-Owners: How Voiding a Marriage Changes Property Rights

The case of Barrido v. Nonato revolves around a property dispute following the annulment of Marietta Barrido and Leonardo Nonato’s marriage. Their marriage was declared void due to psychological incapacity. During the marriage, they acquired a house and lot in Bacolod City. After the annulment, Nonato sought to partition the property, but Barrido refused, claiming it had already been sold to their children. This led to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The central legal question was how to divide the property acquired during a marriage that was subsequently declared void.

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially adjudicated the property to Barrido, citing Article 129 of the Family Code, which typically applies to the dissolution of conjugal partnerships. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, ordering an equitable partition of the property. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, clarifying that while the RTC had erred in relying on Article 129, the order for equitable partition was correct. The Supreme Court, in its decision, agreed with the CA, emphasizing the applicability of Article 147 of the Family Code in cases of void marriages. This article specifically addresses the property relations of parties in a void marriage, stating:

Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

The Supreme Court highlighted the key elements for Article 147 to apply: (1) the parties must be capacitated to marry each other; (2) they must live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and (3) their union must be without the benefit of marriage or their marriage must be void. In this case, all these elements were present. Both Nonato and Barrido were capacitated to marry, they lived as husband and wife, but their marriage was declared void due to psychological incapacity. Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that property acquired during such a union is governed by the rules on co-ownership, meaning that both parties have equal rights to the property.

Barrido argued that the property had already been sold to their children. However, the Court found that the alleged Deed of Sale was not notarized and, therefore, remained a private document. Because it was a private document, Barrido failed to properly authenticate it, making it inadmissible as evidence. As such, the Supreme Court held that the property remained under the co-ownership of Nonato and Barrido. Applying Article 147, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ordering an equitable partition of the property between the former spouses. This decision underscores that when a marriage is declared void, the default property regime is co-ownership, unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Barrido v. Nonato provides clarity on how property should be divided when a marriage is declared void due to psychological incapacity. It emphasizes the importance of Article 147 of the Family Code, which treats the property acquired during the union as co-owned. This ruling has significant implications for individuals who find themselves in similar situations, as it provides a clear legal framework for resolving property disputes. The ruling reinforces the principle that both parties have equal rights to the property acquired during the void marriage, unless there is a valid agreement or evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the court reiterated the importance of properly documenting any transfer of ownership, such as through a notarized deed of sale, to ensure its validity and admissibility in court.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was how to divide property acquired during a marriage that was later declared void due to psychological incapacity. The court needed to determine whether the property should be treated as conjugal property or co-owned property.
What is Article 147 of the Family Code?	Article 147 governs the property relations of parties in a void marriage. It states that property acquired during the union is co-owned and should be divided equally between the parties.
What are the requirements for Article 147 to apply?	For Article 147 to apply, the parties must be capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively as husband and wife, and their union must be without the benefit of marriage or their marriage must be void.
What is the significance of a notarized deed of sale?	A notarized deed of sale is a public document that is admissible as evidence in court. It proves the transfer of ownership of property from one party to another.
What happens if a deed of sale is not notarized?	If a deed of sale is not notarized, it remains a private document and is not admissible as evidence unless properly authenticated. This can make it difficult to prove the transfer of ownership.
What does it mean to equitably partition property?	To equitably partition property means to divide it fairly and justly between the parties. This usually involves dividing the property in equal shares or in proportion to their contributions.
How does psychological incapacity affect property division?	When a marriage is declared void due to psychological incapacity, the property acquired during the union is treated as co-owned property, subject to equal division between the parties under Article 147 of the Family Code.
What is the legal presumption regarding property acquired during a void marriage?	The legal presumption is that property acquired during a void marriage was obtained through the joint efforts of the parties and is, therefore, co-owned by them in equal shares.

This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in dividing property after the dissolution of a marriage, especially when the marriage is declared void. It highlights the importance of understanding the applicable laws and ensuring that all property transactions are properly documented.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MARIETTA N. BARRIDO VS. LEONARDO V. NONATO, G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014