Case Summary (G.R. No. 127358)
RTC’s Annulment and Awards
The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio under Art. 36 (psychological incapacity). It awarded Isabel moral damages ₱2.5 million, exemplary damages ₱1 million (6% interest), attorney’s fees ₱100,000, litigation expenses ₱50,000, and ordered liquidation of conjugal assets: 50% of Noel’s net retirement benefits (₱1,837,667.89 plus 12% interest) and half his company shares. It fixed child support at ₱15,000/month, granted custody to Isabel, and authorized her to resume her maiden name.
Court of Appeals’ Rulings
On interim support, the CA raised the monthly allowance to ₱20,000. It then dismissed Noel’s appeal on merits, affirming the RTC’s annulment, awards, and property distribution. It denied reconsideration of both the support increase and the main decision.
Issues on Review
Noel challenged the CA’s:
• Awards of moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses
• Liquidation of his retirement benefits and stock shares as conjugal property
• Custody award without consulting the 13-year-old child’s preference
He also questioned the CA’s increase of interim support without hearing or income proof.
Moral and Exemplary Damages
The Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity (Art. 36) implies lack of volition to breach marital covenants. Awards of moral (Arts. 21, 2217) and exemplary damages (Art. 2229) require willful wrongful acts. Because incapacity negates willfulness, the damages lacked legal basis and were deleted.
Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Expenses
Under Civil Code Art. 2208, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate due to another’s wrongful act. As Noel’s acts stemmed from psychological incapacity, they did not unjustly force Isabel to litigate. Consequently, these awards were also removed.
Property Liquidation under Co-ownership
With the marriage void ab initio, the Supreme Court applied Family Code Arts. 147–148 (co-ownership regime), not conjugal partnership rules. Property acquired through labor during cohabitation is presumed equally owned. Noel’s retirement benefits and stock shares, earned during marriage, were properly subject to equal co-ownership and remaine
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 127358)
Procedural History
- July 12, 1992: Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Noel Buenaventura on ground of wife’s alleged psychological incapacity.
- Amended petition (with leave of court): Both spouses alleged psychologically incapacitated. Respondent denied her incapacity.
- July 31, 1995: RTC Decision declared marriage void ab initio; awarded damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, support, custody, property settlement, and restoration of maiden name.
- Appeal to Court of Appeals (CA); while pending, respondent moved to increase son’s support pendente lite from ₱15,000 to ₱20,000; CA granted increase on September 2, 1996.
- October 8, 1996: CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal and affirmed RTC Decision in toto; denied reconsideration.
- Petitioner filed Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 127449) and Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 127358) against CA Decisions and Resolutions; consolidated July 9, 1997.
Facts of the Case
- Parties married July 4, 1979; one minor son, Javy Singh Buenaventura.
- Petitioner claimed respondent’s psychological incapacity; later also alleged his own incapacity.
- Respondent claimed petitioner’s deceit and failure to fulfill marital obligations; prayed for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.
- Petitioner worked as bank executive; received separation/retirement benefits of ₱3,675,335.79; held shares in Manila Memorial Park and Provident Group of Companies.
Issues Presented
- Whether the CA erred in upholding:
• Award of moral damages (₱2.5 million) and exemplary damages (₱1 million) with 6% interest.
• Award of attorney’s fees (₱100,000) and litigation expenses (₱50,000) plus costs.
• Order to cede one-half of petitioner’s retirement benefits and stock shares.
• Award of custody to respondent without child’s choice. - Whether CA gravely abused discretion by increasing support pendente lite without hearing and without proper proof of need or petitioner’s capacity.
Trial Court Decision (RTC)
- Declared marriage null and void ab initio under Family Code Art. 36 (psychological incapacity).
- Awarded respondent:
• Moral damages ₱2.5 million; exemplary damages ₱1 million (with 6% interest).
• A