**Facts:**
1. **March 1997 – Initiation of Case:**
– Petitioner Elna Mercado-Fehr filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Respondent Bruno Fehr under Article 36 of the Family Code, citing psychological incapacity.
2. **January 30, 1998 – Trial Court Decision:**
– The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati declared the marriage null and void ab initio and ordered the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of property.
– Custody of their two minor children was awarded to the petitioner.
– An inventory and distribution of properties were ordered.
3. **Post-Judgment Orders:**
– Respondent filed multiple motions, leading to an August 24, 1999, RTC order that excluded certain properties from conjugal assets and divided the remaining properties between the parties.
– Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the ownership of Suite 204 and child support arrangements, which was partially granted in an order dated October 5, 2000.
4. **November 28, 2000 – Notice of Appeal and Certiorari:**
– Petitioner withdrew her notice of appeal and filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the October 5, 2000, RTC order.
5. **October 26, 2001 – CA Dismissal:**
– The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, ruling that the RTC’s order constituted errors of judgment, which should be resolved via ordinary appeal instead.
6. **Denial of Motion for Reconsideration:**
– The CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
7. **Supreme Court Petition:**
– Petitioner raised issues regarding procedural errors and the application of co-ownership rules to the Supreme Court.
**Issues:**
1. **Procedural Issue:**
– Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in its distribution of properties.
2. **Substantive Issues:**
– Ownership of Suite 204 of the LCG Condominium.
– Proper division and partition of properties acquired by the petitioner and respondent.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Procedural Ruling:**
– The Supreme Court found that a strict application of procedural rules could result in a miscarriage of justice. The RTC’s order was a final order which could be appealed; however, the Court chose to review the case to prevent injustice and address the merits directly.
2. **Ownership of Suite 204:**
– The Court decided that Suite 204, purchased while the couple cohabitated, is governed by co-ownership rules under Article 147 of the Family Code. The presumption is that properties acquired during cohabitation are acquired through joint effort and thus should be owned equally.
3. **Division of Properties:**
– The Court held that the division should adhere to co-ownership principles since the marriage was nullified. The RTC’s erroneous three-way split (including provisions for children’s shares) was overruled.
**Doctrine:**
– **Article 147 of the Family Code:** Establishes that properties acquired during cohabitation without marriage or under a void marriage are governed by co-ownership rules.
– **Certiorari Appeals:** May be entertained in exceptional situations where strict procedural adherence could lead to injustice.
**Class Notes:**
– **Article 36 of the Family Code:** Addresses nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity.
– **Article 147 of the Family Code:** Governs property regimes under void marriages or cohabitation by creating a special co-ownership.
– **Certiorari vs. Ordinary Appeal:** Certiorari is justified when there is no adequate remedy, and grave abuse of discretion is evident.
– **Final Orders:** Post-decision orders on property distribution are appealable final orders.
**Historical Background:**
– The case is a landmark in understanding property relations in void marriages, elucidating the implementation of co-ownership principles under the Family Code.
– It emphasizes the judiciary’s role in ensuring equity and justice, especially concerning property and support obligations following nullified marriages.
Leave a Reply