joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be

jointly owned by them in equal shares.

Barrido, however, claims that the ownership
over the property in question is already
vested on their children, by virtue of a Deed
of Sale. But aside from the title to the
property still being registered in the names of
the former spouses, said document of safe
does not bear a notarization of a notary
public. It must be noted that without the
notarial seal, a document remains to be
private and cannot be converted into a public
document, making it inadmissible in evidence
unless properly authenticated. Unfortunately,
Barrido failed to prove its due execution and
authenticity.
142. Spouses Marcos vs
Heirs of Isidro Bangi and Geneveva Diccion
G.R. No. 185745
Facts: Plaintiff respondents, filed an action
for cancellation of transfer certificate of
title, two deeds of sale, restoration of the
original certificate of title, and recovery of
ownership with the RTC. They alleged that
they acquired a parcel of land from Eusebio
Bangi, who represented that he acquired it
from his father Alipio Bangi, by virtue of a
Donation. Defendant petitioners claim that
they bought the property from Eusebio
therafter, and that the sale made to
respondents was invalid because Eusebio, at
that time, the subject property was part of
the estate of Alipio Bangi and thus owed in
common by Eusebio along with his co-heirs.
Issue: Whether partition can be presumed to
have been effected in the instant case, even
in absence of a Deed of Partition.
Held: Yes. Partition is the separation, division
and assignment of a thing held in common
among those to whom it may belong. Every
act which is intended to put an end to
indivision among co-heirs, legatees and
devisees is deemed to be a partition, as it
may be inferred from circumstances that
support this presumption. The general
priniple is that, independent and in spite of
the statute of frauds, courts of equity have
enforced oral partition when it has been
completely or partially performed. It may
also be sustained on the ground that parties
thereto have acquiesced in or ratified the

141. Barrido vs Nonata

G.R. No. 176492
Facts: In the course of the marriage between
Nonato and Barrido, they acquired property,
consisting of a house and lot. When their
marriage was decared void on the ground of
psychological incapacity, Nonato asked
Barrido for partition of their co-owned
property, but Barrido refused. Nonata filed a
complaint for partition. Barrido argues that
the property has been sold to their common
children. The RTC, applying Article 129 of the
Family Code, ordered:(1) equitable partition
if the house and lot, (2) to reimburse the
children of the amount paid by them, and
(3)delivery of presumptive legitimes. The CA
ruled that Article 147 of the family code is
applicable, but the dispostition of the RTC
was still correct.
Issue: Whether a marriage declared void on
the gorund of psychological incapacity is
governed by Art. 129 of the FC which provides
for the procedure in cases of dissolution, or
by Art. 147 which cover the effects of void
marriages on the spouses property relations.
Ruling: Article 147 applies. This particular
kind of co-ownership applies when a man and
a woman, suffering no illegal impediment to
marry each other, exclusively live together as
husband and wife under a void marriage or
without the benefit of marriage. It is clear,
therefore, that 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. Here, all these
elements are present. The term "capacitated"
inthe first paragraph of the provision pertains
to the legal capacity of a party to contract
marriage. Any impediment to marry has not
been shown to have existed on the part of
either Nonato or Barrido. They lived
exclusively with each other as husband and
wife. However, their marriage was found to
be void under Article 36 of the Family Code
on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Here, the former spouses both agree that
they acquired the subject property during the
subsistence of their marriage. Thus, it shall
be presumed to have been obtained by their

ownership over it. Further, the Court notes

that Alipio died in 1918, while his wife
Ramona died 1957. It is quite suspect that the
Deed of Partition was executed only in 1995.
The court found the Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition a ruse to defeat the rights of
respondent.

partition by taking possession, exercising

acts of ownership with respect thereto, or
otherwise recognizing the existence of the
partition.
Here, it is obvious that Eusebio took
possession of his share, and exercised