[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
375 views1 page

Buenaventura V CA Digest

Buenaventura v CA involved a petition for nullity of marriage filed by Noel Buenaventura on the grounds of psychological incapacity of both parties. The RTC declared the marriage null and ordered the liquidation of conjugal partnership property and support for the son. The CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision. The Supreme Court held that since this did not involve annulment of a bigamous marriage, the applicable property regime to be liquidated and distributed was equal co-ownership, not absolute community or conjugal partnership, as the properties were acquired during the union of the parties.

Uploaded by

mybernal18
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
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
375 views1 page

Buenaventura V CA Digest

Buenaventura v CA involved a petition for nullity of marriage filed by Noel Buenaventura on the grounds of psychological incapacity of both parties. The RTC declared the marriage null and ordered the liquidation of conjugal partnership property and support for the son. The CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision. The Supreme Court held that since this did not involve annulment of a bigamous marriage, the applicable property regime to be liquidated and distributed was equal co-ownership, not absolute community or conjugal partnership, as the properties were acquired during the union of the parties.

Uploaded by

mybernal18
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
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/ 1

Buenaventura v CA G.R. Nos. 127358 and G.R. Nos.

127449 March 31, 2005

FACTS: Noel Buenaventura filed a position for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that both he and his wife were 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. Petitioner appealed before the CA. While the appeal was pending, the CA, upon respondents motion issued a resolution increasing the support pendants like to P20, 000. The CA dismissal petitioner appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in to the RTC decision. Petitioner motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition.

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

HELD: 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 maybe, do not apply. Rather the general rule applies, which is in case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable 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 RTC and the CA, to have been acquired during the union of the parties, the same would be covered by the coownership. No fruits of a separate property of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in said distribution.

You might also like