G.R. No. 127358 - Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals

Noel A. Buenaventura and Isabel Lucia Singh Singh Buenaventura contracted marriage on July 4, 1979.
On July 12, 1992, Noel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City on the ground of psychological incapacity of his wife; with leave of court, he later amended to allege psychological incapacity of both spouses.

Declared the marriage null and void ab initio.
Awarded Isabel moral damages of ₱2.5 million and exemplary damages of ₱1 million, both with 6% interest; attorney’s fees of ₱100,000; litigation expenses of ₱50,000 plus costs.
Ordered liquidation of conjugal partnership: Isabel to receive 50% of Noel’s net retirement benefits from Far East Bank & Trust Co. (₱1,837,667.89 with 12% interest) and half of his shares in Manila Memorial Park and Provident Group of Companies.
Ordered Noel to pay monthly support of ₱15,000 to their minor son, Javy Singh Buenaventura, and awarded custody to Isabel.
Authorized Isabel to revert to maiden name.

Noel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In the meantime, Isabel moved to increase pendente lite support; the CA on September 2, 1996 increased support from ₱15,000 to ₱20,000; Noel’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
On October 8, 1996, the CA dismissed Noel’s appeal and affirmed the RTC decision in toto. A motion for reconsideration was denied on November 13, 1996.
Noel filed separate certiorari petitions: one attacking the CA decision on nullity and awards (G.R. No. 127449) and another challenging support pendente lite resolutions (G.R. No. 127358), later consolidated by the Supreme Court.

Whether moral and exemplary damages were properly awarded where annulment is grounded on psychological incapacity.
Whether attorney’s fees and litigation expenses may be awarded absent willful, wrongful acts necessitating litigation.
Whether retirement benefits and shares of stock, acquired during marriage, should be divided as conjugal partnership or under co‐ownership regime.
Whether custody award was invalid for lack of consultation of the minor child’s preference.

Whether the CA gravely abused discretion in refusing to set respondent’s motion to increase support for hearing.
Whether the increase from ₱15,000 to ₱20,000 was justified without examination of evidence or petitioner’s financial capacity.