Buenaventura vs Court of Appeals Case: On the property regime of the marriage & On legitimes of the common children Facts:

July 1992 Noel Buenaventura filed a petition to have his marriage annulled on the ground of Psychological Incapacity of his wife. July 31, 1995 RTC rendered a decision null and void ab intio. Petitioner filed an appeal. October 1996 CA dismissed the petitioner s appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC s decision. 1. CA ordered plaintiff-appellant noel to pay defendant-appellee one-half or p1,837,667.89 out of his retirement benefits received from the far east bank and trust co., with 12% interest thereon from the date of its decision, notwithstanding that said retirement benefits are gratuitous and exclusive property of noel, and also to deliver to defendant-appellee one-half of his shares of stock with the manila memorial park and the provident group of companies, although said shares of stock were acquired by noel before his marriage to respondent isabel and are, therefore, again his exclusive properties. 2. It also awarded exclusive care and custody over the parties minor child. And awarded and additional P15,000 pesos on his monthly support. July 1997 Petitioner files a Review on Certiorari. Issues: 1. W/O the property regime applicable and to be liquidated, partitioned and distributed is that of equal co-ownership. 2. Held: 1. Yes. 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 coownership. It was said in Valdez vs QC RTC. The trial court correctly applied the law. In a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, such as the case may be, of the Family Code. Article 147 is a remake of Article 144 of the Civil Code as interpreted and so applied in previous cases. 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. 2. When a marriage is declared void ab initio, the law states that the final judgment therein shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in the previous proceedings.