Perez v. Perez-Senerpida
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Eliodoro and Adelita Perez were registered owners of a parcel of land. They had two children, Avegail and Adonis. Eliodoro had a prior marriage from which Nicxon Perez, Sr. (father of petitioner Nicxon L. Perez, Jr.) was born. Adelita executed a Renunciation and Waiver of Rights (RWR) in favor of Eliodoro over the subject property, which was inscribed on the title. Subsequently, Eliodoro donated the property to his grandson, Nicxon, without Adelita's conformity. A new title was issued to Nicxon. Eliodoro later filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Adelita, which was granted, declaring their marriage void ab initio. Eliodoro died thereafter. Avegail filed an action for annulment of the RWR and the Deed of Donation (DoD), and cancellation of Nicxon's title, alleging prejudice to her inheritance. Nicxon argued that Adelita had no right to the property when she executed the RWR and that the donation was valid. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) annulled the RWR and the DoD, nullified Nicxon's title, and ordered the issuance of a new title in the names of Eliodoro and Adelita. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Nicxon appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Nicxon assails the CA decision, raising issues on res judicata, the property regime applicable, and the validity of the Deed of Donation.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA and RTC rulings violated the rule on res judicata by not treating the marriage nullity case as final and executory prior to Eliodoro's death. Whether the CA and RTC erred in ruling that the property regime was absolute community property despite the marriage being declared void ab initio; and whether the Deed of Donation executed by Eliodoro in favor of Nicxon is valid. Whether the Renunciation and Waiver of Rights (RWR) is valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA decision but modifying the RTC decision. The Court ruled that the Deed of Donation is void. The RWR is also void. The property acquired during the cohabitation of Eliodoro and Adelita is governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, and neither party could dispose of their share without the other's consent. The Court clarified that the marriage nullity decision became final before Eliodoro's death, rendering their marriage void ab initio, thus invalidating the application of absolute community property rules.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of res judicata and the finality of the marriage nullity decision: The Court found that both the RTC and CA committed a patent error in their factual finding that the marriage nullity decision had not become final prior to Eliodoro's death. The Court noted that subsequent proceedings, including an Annulment of Judgment Petition filed by Adelita and its denial by the CA and the Supreme Court, confirmed that the marriage nullity decision became final and executory on July 6, 2005, which was prior to Eliodoro's death on June 28, 2008. This erroneous factual finding led the lower courts to incorrectly apply the rules on absolute community property. On the property regime and the validity of the Deed of Donation: Since the marriage was declared void ab initio, the Court ruled that the absolute community property (ACP) regime did not apply. Instead, Article 147 of the Family Code, governing cohabitation without a valid marriage, was applicable. Under Article 147, property acquired during cohabitation is owned in equal shares by the parties, governed by rules on co-ownership. However, the article expressly prohibits either party from encumbering or disposing of their share without the other's consent without the other's consent until cohabitation terminates. Therefore, Eliodoro's donation of the entire subject property to Nicxon without Adelita's consent was a prohibited disposition and thus void. The Court also reiterated that donations between persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage are void under Article 87 of the Family Code, making Adelita's RWR void. On the validity of the Renunciation and Waiver of Rights (RWR): The Court affirmed the RTC and CA's finding that the RWR was void. While the lower courts relied on Article 87 of the Family Code concerning donations between spouses during marriage, the Supreme Court clarified that the applicable provision was the part of Article 87 stating, "The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage." The Court found no material consideration for the RWR, thus it partook the nature of a prohibited donation or gratuitous advantage. The Court also noted that even if the marriage were valid and there was consideration, the RWR would still be void under Article 1490 of the Civil Code, which prohibits sales between spouses except under specific conditions.
Main Doctrine
Donations or gratuitous advantages between persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage are void under Article 87 of the Family Code. Furthermore, under Article 147 of the Family Code, neither party can encumber or dispose of their share in property acquired during cohabitation without the consent of the other until cohabitation terminates.