Scribd
Upload
140 views2 pages

University of The Philippines College of Law

(1) This case discusses the effects of annulment on the property regime when a marriage is declared void from the beginning rather than due to annulment of a bigamous marriage. In such cases of void marriages, the applicable property regime is that of equal co-ownership, not conjugal partnership of gains. (2) The court affirmed the lower court's order to liquidate, partition, and distribute the properties acquired during the union based on equal co-ownership rather than the conjugal partnership regime. (3) The court modified the lower court's award of damages but affirmed the order giving the respondent half of the retirement benefits and shares acquired during the marriage, based on

Uploaded by

Juvy Dimaano
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
140 views2 pages

University of The Philippines College of Law

(1) This case discusses the effects of annulment on the property regime when a marriage is declared void from the beginning rather than due to annulment of a bigamous marriage. In such cases of void marriages, the applicable property regime is that of equal co-ownership, not conjugal partnership of gains. (2) The court affirmed the lower court's order to liquidate, partition, and distribute the properties acquired during the union based on equal co-ownership rather than the conjugal partnership regime. (3) The court modified the lower court's award of damages but affirmed the order giving the respondent half of the retirement benefits and shares acquired during the marriage, based on

Uploaded by

Juvy Dimaano
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

University of the Philippines College of Law

Persons and Family Relations | Prof. Katrina Legarda


Case Digest

TOPIC: Effects of Annulment on the property regime of property


DOCTRINE:
CASE Number : G.R. No. 127358; March 31, 2005
CASE Name: Buenaventura vs CA
Ponente: Azcuna, J.

FACTS
These cases involve a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, which
was filed by petitioner Noel Buenaventura on July 12, 1992, on the ground of
the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife, Isabel Singh Buenaventura,
herein respondent. After respondent filed her answer, petitioner, with leave of
court, amended his petition by stating that both he and his wife were
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage. In response, respondent filed an amended answer denying the
allegation that she was psychologically incapacitated.
The RTC in its decision, declared the marriage entered into between
petitioner and respondent null and violation ordered the liquidation of the
assets of the conjugal partnership property; ordered petitioner a regular
support in favor of his son in the amount of 15,000 monthly, subject to
modification as the necessity arises, and awarded the care and custody of the
minor to his mother.

ISSUES
Whether or not co-ownership is applicable to valid marriage.

HELD

(1) Yes: Since the present case does not involve the annulment of a bigamous
marriage, the provisions of Article 50 in relation to Articles 41, 42 and 43 of the
Family Code, providing for the dissolution of the absolute community or conjugal
partnership of gains, as the case may be, do not apply. Rather, the general rule
applies, which is that in case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property
regime applicable and to be liquidated, partitioned and distributed is that of equal
co-ownership (Article 147 or 148).

Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo were found, both
by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, to have been acquired during the union
of the parties, the same would be covered by the co-ownership. No fruits of a
separate property of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in
said distribution. The liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties owned
in common by the parties herein as ordered by the court a quo should, therefore, be
sustained, but on the basis of co-ownership and not of the regime of conjugal
partnership of gains.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 8, 1996 and its
Resolution dated December 10, 1996 which are contested in the Petition for Review
(G.R. No. 127449), are hereby MODIFIED, in that the award of moral and exemplary
damages, attorneys fees, expenses of litigation and costs are deleted. The order
giving respondent one-half of the retirement benefits of petitioner from Far East
Bank and Trust Co. and one-half of petitioners shares of stock in Manila Memorial
Park and in the Provident Group of Companies is sustained but on the basis of
the liquidation, partition and distribution of the co-ownership and not of
the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. The rest of said Decision and
Resolution are AFFIRMED.

The Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 127358) contesting the Court of
Appeals Resolutions of September 2, 1996 and November 13, 1996 which increased
the support pendente lite in favor of the parties son, Javy Singh Buenaventura, is
now MOOT and ACADEMIC and is, accordingly, DISMISSED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like