Scribd
Upload
277 views2 pages

Mercado-Fehr Vs Fehr

This case involves a dispute over ownership of a condominium unit between Elna Mercado-Fehr and Bruno Fehr whose marriage was declared void. The trial court had ruled the condo was Bruno's exclusive property as it was purchased before marriage. However, the Supreme Court determined the condo was acquired during the parties' cohabitation and as such, the rules of co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code apply. As the parties were capable of marrying, lived as husband and wife, and their union was void, properties acquired during cohabitation are co-owned. Since the condo was purchased during the time Elna and Bruno lived together, it is considered common property.

Uploaded by

Judy Miraflores Dumduma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
277 views2 pages

Mercado-Fehr Vs Fehr

This case involves a dispute over ownership of a condominium unit between Elna Mercado-Fehr and Bruno Fehr whose marriage was declared void. The trial court had ruled the condo was Bruno's exclusive property as it was purchased before marriage. However, the Supreme Court determined the condo was acquired during the parties' cohabitation and as such, the rules of co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code apply. As the parties were capable of marrying, lived as husband and wife, and their union was void, properties acquired during cohabitation are co-owned. Since the condo was purchased during the time Elna and Bruno lived together, it is considered common property.

Uploaded by

Judy Miraflores Dumduma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ELNA MERCADO-FEHR, petitioner, vs. BRUNO FEHR, respondent.

G.R. No. 152716. October 23, 2003


Facts:
In March 1983, after two years of long-distance courtship, petitioner left Cebu City and moved
in with respondent in the latters residence in Metro Manila. Their relations bore fruit and their
first child, Michael Bruno Fehr, was born on December 3, 1983. The couple got married on
March 14, 1985. In the meantime, they purchased on installment a condominium unit, Suite 204,
at LCG Condominium, as evidenced by a Contract to Sell dated July 26, 1983 executed by
respondent as the buyer and J.V. Santos Commercial Corporation as the seller. Petitioner also
signed the contract as witness, using the name Elna Mercado Fehr. Upon completion of payment,
the title to the condominium unit was issued in the name of petitioner.
The trial court declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent void ab initio under
Article 36 of the Family Code and ordered the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of
property. Custody over the two minor children was awarded to petitioner, she being the innocent
spouse. The trial court issued an Order resolving the various motions filed by respondent after
the case had been decided. The Order pertained to the properties held by the parties. Suite 204 of
the LCG Condominium, was excluded from their conjugal properties, considering that the same
was purchased on installment basis by respondent with his exclusive funds prior to his marriage,
as evidenced by a Contract to Sell dated July 26, 1983.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said Order with respect to the adjudication
of Suite 204, LCG Condominium and the support of the children. Petitioner alleged
that Suite204 was purchased on installment basis at the time when petitioner and respondent
were living exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage,
hence the rules on co-ownership should apply in accordance with Article 147 of the Family
Code. Resolving said motion, the trial court held that since the marriage between petitioner and
respondent was declared void ab intio, the rules on co-ownership should apply in the liquidation
and partition of the properties they own in common pursuant to Article 147 of the Family
Code. It also affirmed its previous ruling that Suite 204 of LCG Condominium was acquired
prior to the couples cohabitation and therefore pertained solely to respondent.

Issue: Whether or not the Suite 204 of LGC Condominium is the exclusive property of Bruno
Fehr.
Held:
We give more credence to petitioners submission that Suite 204 was acquired during the parties
cohabitation. Accordingly, under Article 147 of the Family Code, said property should be
governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Article 147 applies to unions of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any
impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void, as in the case at
bar. This provision creates a co-ownership with respect to the properties they acquire during their
cohabitation.
For Article 147 to operate, the man and the woman: (1) must be capacitated to marry each other;
(2) live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and (3) their union is without the
benefit of marriage or their marriage is void. 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 with each other as husband and wife when petitioner moved in with
respondent in his residence and were later united in marriage. Their marriage, however, was
found to be void under Article 36 of the Family Code because of respondents psychological
incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations.
The disputed property, Suite 204 of LCG Condominium, was purchased on installment basis
on July 26, 1983, at the time when petitioner and respondent were already living together. Hence,
it should be considered as common property of petitioner and respondent.

You might also like