BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.

127358, 31 March 2005

Effects of annulment on the property regime of the marriage

NOEL BUENAVENTURA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ISABEL LUCIA SINGH BUENAVENTURA,
respondents.

Legal action: Petition for review on certiorari

Ponente: AZCUNA, J.


Facts:
Noel Buenaventura filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on July 12, 1992, on the ground
of the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife, Isabel. Noel amended his petition by stating that both he
and his wife were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. In
response, Isabel filed an amended answer denying the allegation that she was psychologically
incapacitated.
The Regional Trial Court promulgated a decision declaring the marriage null and void ab initio. It also
ordered the liquidation of the assets of the conjugal partnership property by ceding, giving and paying to
her 50% of his retirement benefits from Far East Bank and Trust Co. and outstanding shares of stock with
Manila Memorial Park and Provident Group of Companies.
Noel appealed the above decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed Noel's appeal for
lack of merit and affirming in toto the trial court's decision. Noel filed a motion for reconsideration, which
was denied.

Issue Held Ratio
WoN the Court of Appeals decided
the case in accord with the law and
jurisprudence when it ordered Noel
to give Isabel his exclusive
properties (i.e., of his retirement
benefits, which are gratuitous, and
of his shares of stock, which
were acquired by Noel before his
marriage to Isabel).

No 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.

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.