You are on page 1of 2

Buenaventura v CA

Facts:
- petition for declaration of nullity of marriage by Noel on the ground of PI of his wife Isabel. After Isabel
filed her answer, Noel with leave of court amended the petition stating that both of them are
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Isabel denied being
psychologically incapacitated.
RTC: declared the marriage void ab initio, for Noel to pay moral and exemplary damages with interest plus
attorney's fees and costs, liquidation of assets of the conjugal partnership, support for their son and
custody award to Isabel and authorizing Isabel to revert back to her maiden name.
- while appeal with CA was pending, Isabel filed a motion to increase the support pendente lite of their son
which was opposed by Noel
CA: dismissed Noel's appeal for lack of merit, affirming RTC in toto; MFR was denied; went to SC for review
on certiorari; separate resolution increasing the support of the son, MFR for such resolution was denied.
SC: petitions for review on certiorari for the RTC ruling affirmed by CA and certiorari for the resolution
increasing support was ordered consolidated
Noel:
- CA erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages with interest without any legal and moral basis
- erred in awarding attorney's fees and expenses of litigation plus costs without factual legal basis
- ordering Noel to pay Isabel half of his retirement benefits with interest considering that said benefits are
gratuitous and exclusive property of Noel and to deliver half of his shares of stock with the Manila
Memorial Part and the Provident Group of Companies when said stocks were acquired by Noel before his
marriage to Isabel and are therefore his exclusive properties
- awarding exclusive care and custody on their son, 13 y.o. without asking the son his choice as to whom
between his two parents he would like to have custody over his person.
- erred in denying oral arguments to the motion to increase support of his son and increasing it needlessly,
without examining the list of expenses and assuming that Javy is entitled to the increase in support and
denying Noel opportunity to prove that his present income cannot afford to increase Javy's support.
SC: RTC's finding that Noel was liable for moral damages under Art. 2217 and 21 of the Civil Code provides
that the individual must wilfully cause loss or injury to another. There is a need that the act is wilful and
done in complete freedom. In declaring the marriage void ab initio based on Art. 36, the intendment of the
law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage which negated the award of moral damages since moral damages arise when there is wilful
causing of loss or injury. Moral damages should be predicated not on the mere act of entering into
marriage but on specific evidence that it was done deliberately and with malice by a party who had
knowledge of his or her disability and yet wilfully concealed the same. No such evidence was adduced.
incapacity removes the basis for the contention that Noel purposely deceived Isabel, if she was deceived,
it was not due to a wilful act on the part of Noel but his incapacity was beyond Noel's control and so the
grant of moral damages was without basis in law and fact. It follows that the grant of exemplary damages
cannot stand since it is imposed in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
Art. 2208 authorizes an award of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation and other judicial costs when
the plaintiff's act or omission has compelled the defendant to litigate and incur expenses to protect her
interest and where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation
should be recovered.
In Domingo v CA, SC held that the declaration of nullity of marriage carries ipso facto a judgment for the
liquidation of the properties. Noel and Isabel were married on 1979 and all the property acquired during
the marriage, whether the acquiring appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of
one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. Conjugal properties are
shared equally, half the share of Noel's separation/retirement benefits it being part of their conjugal
partnership having been obtained or derived from labor, industry, work or profession in accordance with
Art. 117, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. Same with the shares of stocks of Noel with the Manila Memorial
Park and the Provident Group of Companies. Valdes v RTC of QC expounded on the consequences of a void
marriage on the property relations of the spouses and specified Art. 147 (co-ownership) or 148 as the case
may be. The liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties ordered by the RTC is sustained but on

the basis of co-ownership and not on the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. CA's decision was
modified, the award of moral and exemplary damages are deleted.

You might also like