Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
MercadoFehr vs. Fehr
*
G.R.No.152716.October23,2003.
* THIRDDIVISION.
289
VOL.414,OCTOBER23,2003
289
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Delos Angeles, Aguirre, Olaguer & Sto. Domingo for
petitioner.
Ramel A. Aguinaldoforrespondent.
PUNO,J.:
Thiscasearosefromapetitionfordeclarationofnullityof
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity to
complywiththeessentialmaritalobligationsunderArticle
36 of the Family Code filed by petitioner Elna Mercado
Fehr against respondent Bruno Fehr
before the Regional
1
TrialCourtofMakatiinMarch1997.
After due proceedings, the trial court declared the
marriagebetweenpetitionerandrespondentvoidab initio
under Article 36 of the Family Code and ordered the
dissolutionoftheirconjugal
_______________
1DocketedasCivilCaseNo.97573,OriginalRecords,pp.110.
290
290
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
MercadoFehr vs. Fehr
2
Salonga,OriginalRecords,pp.138144.
3Id.,pp.143144.
4
291
VOL.414,OCTOBER23,2003
291
292
292
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
MercadoFehr vs. Fehr
purchasedoninstallmentbasisatthetimewhenpetitioner
and respondent were living exclusively with each other as
husbandandwifewithoutthebenefitofmarriage,hencethe
rules on coownership should apply in accordance with
Article 147 of the Family Code. Petitioner further claimed
that it would not be in the best interests of the children if
shewouldbemadetodemandperiodicallyfromrespondent
his share in the support of the children. She instead
proposedthattheUpperBasementandtheLowerGround
Floor of the LCG Condominium be adjudicated to her so
that she could use the income from
the lease of said
6
premisesforthesupportofthechildren.
Resolving said motion, the trial court held in an Order
dated October 5, 2000 that since the marriage between
petitioner and respondent was declared void ab initio, the
rules on coownership should apply in the liquidation and
partitionofthepropertiestheyownincommonpursuantto
Article 147 of the Family Code. The court, however, noted
that the parties have already agreed in principle to divide
the properties and/or proceeds from the sale thereof
proportionately among them and their children as follows:
1/3forpetitioner,1/3forrespondentand1/3forthechildren.
It also affirmed its previous ruling that Suite 204 of LCG
Condominium was acquired prior to the couples
7
cohabitationandthereforepertainedsolelytorespondent.
OnNovember28,2000,petitionerfiledanoticeofappeal8
questioning the October 5, 2000 Order of the trial court.
9
RespondentfiledanOppositiontotheNoticeofAppeal. On
10
January12,2001,petitionerwithdrewthenoticeofappeal
andinsteadfiledonthefollowingdayaspecialcivilaction
for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals,
questioningthefindingsofthetrialcourtinitsOrderdated
11
October5,2000.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated October 26,
2001,dismissedthepetitionforcertiorariforlackofmerit.
The appellate court stated that petitioner has not shown
anyreasontowarranttheissuanceofawritofcertiorarias
theerrorssheraisedwere
_______________
6Id.,atpp.381387.
7Id.,atpp.576577.
8Id.,atpp.578.
9Id.,atpp.581584.
10Id.,atp.608.
11CARollo,pp.214.
293
VOL.414,OCTOBER23,2003
293
arguments:
1) Petitionercorrectlyfiledapetitionforcertiorariand
prohibition against the Regional Trial Court of
Makati,Branch149intheCourtofAppealsinview
of the fact that the questioned orders were issued
withgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoexcess
oforlackofjurisdiction.
2) The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
questionedorderswereerrorsofjudgmentandnotof
14
jurisdiction.
We shall first address the procedural issue, whether the
CourtofAppealserredindismissingthespecialcivilaction
forcertiorarifiledbypetitioner.
Petitioner argues that the filing of a petition for
certiorariwiththeCourtofAppealswasproperbecausethe
trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in the
issuanceofitsOrderdatedOctober5,2000,andtherewere
no other speedy and adequate remedies available. She
asserts that the trial court committed grave abuse of
discretion when it held that Suite 204 of the LCG
Condominium was the exclusive property of respondent,
although it was established that they lived together as
husband and wife beginning March 1983, before the
execution of the Contract to Sell on July 26, 1983.
Furthermore, the trial courts ruling dividing their
properties into three, instead of two as provided under
Article147oftheFamilyCode,orfour,asallegedlyagreed
bythepartiesduringaconferencewiththetrialcourtjudge
15
onMay3,2000,alsoconstitutedgraveabuseofdiscretion.
Respondent,ontheotherhand,contendsthatpetitioner
maynolongeravailofanyremedy,whetheranappealora
petitionforcertiorari,asshehadlostalltherighttoappeal
fromthetimetheDecisionofJanuary30,1998becamefinal
and executory. He argues that the Order of the trial court
datedOctober5,2000isnolongerassailablebecauseitwas
merelyissuedtoexecutethefinal
_______________
12Id.,atpp.124129.
13Id.,atp.153.
14Petition,Rollo,pp.1920.
15Id.,atpp.1427.
294
294
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
MercadoFehr vs. Fehr
RespondentfurtherclaimsSuite204ofLCGCondominium
tobehisexclusivepropertyasitwasacquiredonJuly26,
16
1983,priortotheirmarriageonMarch14,1985.
A petition for certiorari is the proper remedy when any
tribunal,boardorofficerexercisingjudicialorquasijudicial
functionshasactedwithoutorinexcessofitsjurisdiction,or
withgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessof
jurisdiction and there is no appeal, nor any plain speedy,
and adequate remedy at law. Grave abuse of discretion is
defined as the capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. As a
general rule,apetitionforcertiorariwillnotlieifanappeal
istheproperremedysuchaswhenanerrorofjudgmentor
procedure is involved. As long as a court acts within its
jurisdictionanddoesnotgravelyabuseitsdiscretioninthe
exercise thereof, any supposed error committed by it will
amount to nothing more than an error of judgment
reviewable by a timely appeal and not assailable by a
special civil action of certiorari. However, in certain
exceptional cases, where the rigid application of such rule
willresultinamanifestfailureormiscarriageofjustice,the
provisions of the Rules of Court which are technical rules
mayberelaxed.Certiorarihasbeendeemedtobejustified,
for instance, in order to prevent irreparable damage and
injurytoapartywherethetrialjudgehascapriciouslyand
whimsicallyexercisedhisjudgment,orwheretheremaybe
danger of clear failure of justice, or where an ordinary
appealwouldsimplybeinadequatetorelieveapartyfrom
17
theinjuriouseffectsofthejudgmentcomplainedof.
The exception applies to the case at bar. We reject
respondents submission that all the appellate remedies of
petitioner have been foreclosed when the Decision dated
January 30, 1998 became final and executory. What is
beingquestionedinthispetitionisnotthe
_______________
16Comment,Rollo,pp.147158.
17Estate
SCRA240(2001).
295
VOL.414,OCTOBER23,2003
295
296
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
MercadoFehr vs. Fehr
297
VOL.414,OCTOBER23,2003
297
whosemarriageisnonethelessvoid, asinthecaseatbar.
This provision creates a coownership with respect to the
propertiestheyacquireduringtheircohabitation.
We held 21
in Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 102,
Quezon City:
This peculiar kind of coownership applies when a man and a
woman, suffering no legal impediment to marry each other, so
exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void
marriageorwithoutthebenefitofmarriage.Thetermcapacitated
intheprovision(inthefirstparagraphofthelaw)referstothelegal
capacityofapartytocontractmarriage,i.e.,anymaleorfemaleof
the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of the
impedimentsmentionedinArticles37and38oftheCode.
Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses
throughtheirworkandindustryshallbegovernedbytheruleson
equal coownership. Any property acquired during the union is
prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint
efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the
property shall still be considered as having contributed thereto
jointlyifsaidpartyseffortsconsistedinthecareandmaintenance
ofthefamilyhousehold.
Thus,forArticle147tooperate,themanandthewoman:(1)
mustbecapacitatedtomarryeachother;(2)liveexclusively
witheachotherashusbandandwife;and(3)theirunionis
withoutthebenefitofmarriageortheirmarriageisvoid.All
these elements are present in the case at bar. It has not
been shown that petitioner and respondent suffered any
impediment to marry each other. They lived exclusively
witheachotherashusbandandwifewhenpetitionermoved
inwithrespondentinhisresidenceandwerelaterunitedin
marriage. Their marriage, however, was found to be void
underArticle36oftheFamilyCodebecauseofrespondents
psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital
obligations.
Thedisputedproperty,Suite204ofLCGCondominium,
waspurchasedoninstallmentbasisonJuly26,1983,atthe
time when petitioner and respondent were already living
together. Hence, it should be considered as common
propertyofpetitionerandrespondent.
_______________
20Cario
vs. Cario,351SCRA127(2001).
21260SCRA221(1996).
298
298
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
MercadoFehr vs. Fehr