G.R. No. 233365 , March 24, 2021
NICXON L. PEREZ, JR., PETITIONER, VS. AVEGAIL PEREZ-SENERPIDA, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND MR. SENERPIDA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Spouses Eliodoro Q. Perez and Adelita M. Perez were the registered owners of a parcel of land in Olongapo City. On October 29, 1995, Adelita executed a Renunciation and Waiver of Rights (RWR) over the property in favor of Eliodoro. On July 27, 2004, Eliodoro donated the property via a Deed of Donation (DoD) to his grandson, Nicxon L. Perez, Jr., without Adelita’s consent. The title was transferred to Nicxon. On February 1, 2005, Eliodoro filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Adelita under Article 36 of the Family Code. On June 15, 2005, the RTC declared the marriage void ab initio, and the decision became final on July 6, 2005. Eliodoro died on June 28, 2008. On September 30, 2010, Avegail Perez-Senerpida, daughter of Eliodoro and Adelita, filed an action for Annulment of Donation and Title against Nicxon, arguing the RWR and DoD prejudiced her future legitime. The RTC annulled the RWR and DoD, and ordered the cancellation of Nicxon’s title. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Nicxon elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the gratuitous disposition (donation) of property acquired during a common-law relationship or cohabitation without the benefit of marriage, or under a void marriage, requires the consent of both parties, as is required for a lawfully married couple.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. The Court ruled that the property relations of parties in a void marriage or a common-law relationship are governed by the rules on co-ownership under Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code, not by the regime of absolute community property. However, applying the principle of fairness and justice, and by analogy to Article 98 of the Family Code (which prohibits a spouse from donating community property without the other’s consent), the consent of both parties is required for the gratuitous disposition of property acquired during their cohabitation. The Court held that the prohibition on donations between spouses during marriage, rooted in mutual love and respect, should apply with equal force to couples living together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Since the subject property was acquired during the cohabitation of Eliodoro and Adelita, and the donation to Nicxon was made without Adelita’s consent, the DoD was void. Consequently, the RWR, which was a waiver of her share in the co-owned property without consideration and made during the cohabitation, was also void. The Court found no merit in Nicxon’s other arguments, including res judicata and laches.