Mercado-Fehr v. Fehr
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a petition filed by petitioner Elna Mercado-Fehr seeking the declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Bruno Fehr. The grounds for the petition were the respondent's alleged psychological incapacity to fulfill his essential marital obligations, as stipulated under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted the petition, declaring the marriage void ab initio and ordering the dissolution of the conjugal partnership. The RTC also addressed the division of properties and awarded custody of the two minor children to the petitioner. Procedural History: Following the RTC's decision declaring the marriage void, the trial court issued an order on August 24, 1999, resolving motions concerning the parties' properties. This order excluded certain properties from the conjugal assets and specified the distribution of the remaining conjugal properties. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that Suite 204 of the LCG Condominium should be considered co-owned property under Article 147 of the Family Code, as it was acquired during their cohabitation prior to marriage. The RTC, in an order dated October 5, 2000, affirmed its previous ruling regarding Suite 204 but acknowledged that the parties had agreed in principle to a three-way division of properties (1/3 each for petitioner, respondent, and children). Petitioner initially filed a notice of appeal but later withdrew it and filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition, deeming the issues raised as errors of judgment, not grave abuse of discretion. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA's decision through a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. She contends that the CA erred in dismissing her petition, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in its orders, particularly concerning the exclusive adjudication of Suite 204 of the LCG Condominium to the respondent and the division of properties. Petitioner asserts that Suite 204 was acquired during their cohabitation and should be governed by the rules on co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code. She also disputes the trial court's pronouncement of a three-way property division, claiming it was not agreed upon and that the applicable law should be co-ownership rules, not the provisions cited by the respondent regarding presumptive legitime.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner. Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of or lack of jurisdiction in its Order dated October 5, 2000, particularly concerning the ownership of Suite 204 of LCG Condominium and the partition of properties. Whether Suite 204 of LCG Condominium should be considered exclusive property of the respondent or common property under Article 147 of the Family Code. Whether the division of properties should be based on co-ownership rules or other agreements/provisions cited by the trial court.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149 for liquidation of the properties of petitioner and respondent in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Propriety of Certiorari: The Court held that while a petition for certiorari is generally not a substitute for an appeal, it may be allowed in exceptional cases to prevent a miscarriage of justice, particularly when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the Court found that a rigid application of the rule would result in a miscarriage of justice by potentially divesting the petitioner of her just share in the common property, which is crucial for supporting their children. Therefore, the Court relaxed the general rule and gave due course to the petition to address the substantive issues. On the Ownership of Suite 204, LCG Condominium and Partition of Properties: The Court found more credence in the petitioner's submission that Suite 204 was acquired during the parties' cohabitation, even though the Contract to Sell was dated July 26, 1983, and the marriage was on March 14, 1985. The Court noted that the parties were already living together as husband and wife since March 1983, and the petitioner also signed the contract as a witness. The Court rejected the trial court's pronouncement that the parties agreed to divide their properties into three equal shares (1/3 each for petitioner, respondent, and children). The Court found no support in the records for such an agreement, and noted the petitioner's assertion of a four-way division. The Court also dismissed the respondent's argument that a three-way partition was in accordance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code, as these provisions pertain to voidable marriages and specific instances of void marriages, not the general rule for void marriages under Article 36. On the Application of Article 147 of the Family Code: Applying Article 147 of the Family Code, which governs unions of parties capacitated to marry but living exclusively with each other without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, the Court ruled that properties acquired during such cohabitation are presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts and should be owned in equal shares under the rules of co-ownership. All these elements were present in the case: the parties were legally capacitated, they lived together exclusively as husband and wife, and their marriage was declared void under Article 36. Consequently, properties acquired during their cohabitation are considered common property and governed by the rules on co-ownership. On the Division of Properties Based on Co-ownership Rules and Remand for Liquidation: Therefore, the Court held that the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership should apply to the settlement of the common properties. Given the ruling that Suite 204 is common property and that the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership should apply to the partition, the Court found it necessary to remand the case to the Regional Trial Court. This is to allow for the proper liquidation of the properties of the petitioner and respondent in accordance with the Supreme Court's pronouncements, ensuring a just and equitable distribution.
Main Doctrine
Properties acquired during cohabitation under Article 147 of the Family Code are governed by the rules on co-ownership, and the presumption is that such properties were acquired through joint efforts, entitling both parties to equal shares, unless proven otherwise. A petition for certiorari may be allowed to correct grave abuse of discretion even if an appeal is available, to prevent a miscarriage of justice.