View full case

MARIETTA N. BARRIDO v. LEONARDO V. NONATO

FACTS:

Marietta N. Barrido, the petitioner, filed a Petition for Review questioning the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordering the partition of a property owned by Barrido and her former husband, respondent Leonardo V. Nonato. The petitioner and respondent had acquired the property during their marriage, which was later declared void due to psychological incapacity. Following the declaration of nullity, Nonato filed a Complaint for partition when Barrido refused to divide the property. Barrido argued that the property had already been sold to their children. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled in favor of Barrido and ordered that the property be awarded to her. However, the RTC reversed this decision and ordered the equitable partition of the property. The CA subsequently affirmed the RTC's decision. Barrido then filed a Petition for Review, alleging various errors in the CA's decision. The Court, however, held that the MTCC had jurisdiction over the case as the assessed value of the property did not exceed the prescribed limit. Consequently, the petition was denied.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) had jurisdiction to hear the partition case.

  2. Whether the property covered by TCT No. T-140361 is conjugal after being sold to the children.

  3. Whether Article 129 of the Family Code is applicable in the case considering the assumption that the MTCC had jurisdiction over the case.

RULING:

  1. The MTCC had jurisdiction to hear the partition case because it has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value does not exceed a certain amount.

  2. The property covered by TCT No. T-140361 is deemed conjugal even after being sold to the children because the sale does not automatically sever the conjugal nature of the property.

  3. Article 129 of the Family Code is inapplicable in this case because the MTCC had jurisdiction. However, the equitable partition of the property ordered by the Regional Trial Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals is still valid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The jurisdiction of the court to hear a partition case is determined by the assessed value of the property involved.

  • The sale of a conjugal property to the children does not automatically sever its conjugal nature.

  • The equitable partition of conjugal property may be ordered even if the specific provision of the law invoked is incorrect, as long as the court has jurisdiction over the case.