CO- OWNERSHIP

Buenaventura VS. CA
G.R. Nos. 127358 and G.R. Nos. 127449
March 31, 2005

Facts: Noel Buenaventura Iiled a position Ior the declaration oI nullity oI marriage on the ground
that both he and his wiIe were psychologically incapacitated.
The RTC in its decision, declared the marriage entered into between petitioner and respondent
null and violation ordered the liquidation oI the assets oI the conjugal partnership property;
ordered petitioner a regular support in Iavor oI his son in the amount oI 15,000 monthly, subject
to modiIication as the necessity arises, and awarded the care and custody oI the minor to his
mother.
Petitioner appealed beIore the CA. While the appeal was pending, the CA, upon respondent`s
motion issued a resolution increasing the support pendants like to P20, 000.
The CA dismissal petitioner appeal Ior lack oI merit and aIIirmed in to the RTC decision.
Petitioner motion Ior 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 oI a bigamous marriage, the
provisions oI article 50 in relation to articles 41, 42 and 43 oI the Family Code, providing Ior the
dissolution oI the absolute community or conjugal partnership oI 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 oI equal co-
ownership.
Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo were Iound, both by the RTC
and the CA, to have been acquired during the union oI the parties, the same would be covered by
the co-ownership. No Iruits oI a separate property oI one oI the parties appear to have been
included or involved in said distribution.

SEPERATION OF PROPERTY
Facts: a Pet it ion Ior Review on Certi orari assailing t he Decision, promulgat ed by
t he Court oI Appeals, which aIIir med t he Judgment on Compromise Agreement
oI t he Regional Tr ial Court.
cralawHerein pet it ioner and pr ivat e respondent are spouses who once had
a blissIul marr ied liIe and out oI which were blessed t o have a son. However,
pet it ioner discovered t hat pr ivat e respondent was having illicit sexual aIIair
wit h her paramour, which t hus, prompt ed t he pet it ioner to Iile a case oI adult er y
against pr ivat e respondent and t he lat ters paramour. Consequent ly, bot h t he
pr ivat e respondent and her paramour were convict ed oI t he cr ime charged.
cralawTher eaIt er, pr ivat e respondent , Iiled a Pet it ion Ior Declarat ion oI
Nullit y oI Marr iage, Dissolut ion and Liquidat ion oI Conjugal Part ner ship oI
Gains and Damages wit h t he Regional Tr ial Court . cralawDur ing t he pre-t r ial oI
t he said case, pet it ioner and pr ivat e respondent ent ered int o a COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT
cralawThe pet it ioner Iiled a Pet it ion Ior Certiorari and Prohibit ion wit h
t he CA under Rule 65 oI t he Rules oI Court claiming t hat t he RTC commit t ed
grave error and abuse oI discret ion amount ing t o lack or excess oI jur isdict ion,
quest ioning t he validit y oI t he compromise agreement .
t he CA dismissed t he Pet it ion Ior lack oI mer it .


Issue: whet her t he part ial volunt ar y separat ion oI propert y made by t he spouses
pending t he pet it ion Ior declar at ion oI nullit y oI marr iage is valid.

Ruling: the supreme court ruled that a partial voluntary separation oI property agreed upon by
the parties via a compromise agreement duly approved by the court prior to the judicial
declaration oI nullity oI marriage is valid. ,
t he Pet it ion is DENIED. The Decision oI t he Court oI Appeals isAFFIRMED.

Sabalones vs. Court oI Appeals GR 106169 February 14, 1994
Facts:
Issue: won the CA erred in granting the preliminary injunction, because oI art. 124 oI the Iamily
code.
Ruling: the petition is DENIED Ior lack oI merit. The sc ruled against the husband, stating that


ARLITOS E. SILVA, Petitioner, vs. HON. OURT OF APPEALS and SUZANNE T.
GONZALES, Respondents

Facts: Carlitos E. Silva, a married businessman, and Suzanne T. Gonzales, an unmarried local
actress, cohabited without the beneIit oI marriage. The union saw the birth oI two children:
Ramon Carlos and Rica Natalia.Accdg to Silva, ConIlict comes in when Gonzales decided to
resume her acting career over his vigorous objections. At any rate, the two eventually parted
ways.
in February 1986, Silva Iiled a petition Ior custodial rights over the children beIore the Regional
Trial Court when Gonzales reIused to allow him to have the children in his company on
weekends. The petition was opposed by Gonzales who averred that Silva oIten engaged in
"gambling and womanizing" which she Ieared could aIIect the moral and social values oI the
children. Jugement rendered in Iavor oI Silva but he needs the written consent oI the respondent
iI he`s going to take out the children.
Gonzales interposed an appeal Irom the RTCs order to the Court oI Appeals. , the appellate
tribunal ruled in Iavor oI Gonzales.Silva Iiled a petition to the SC Ior relieI.

allawlibrary
Issue: whether or not the petitioner has the right to visit the children during weekends.

Ruling: 1he sc ruled in favor of the petitioner, whereby under art. 220 of the family code,states
that it is the natural right and duty of parents and those exercising parental authority to, among
other things, keep children in their company and to give them love and affection, advice and counsel,
companionship and understanding.
There is no doubt that in all cases involving a child, his interest and welfare is always the
paramount consideration. a few hours spent by petitioner with the children, however, could not all be
that detrimental to the children. The allegations of respondent against the character of petitioner,
even assuming as true, cannot be taken as sufficient basis to render petitioner an unfit father.
Therefore, the decision of the trial court is REINSTATED, reversing thereby the judgment of
the appellate court which is hereby SET ASIDE



Republic vs. CA CR 1S3614 December 3, 2003, 477 SCRA 277
Facts: n March 29, 2001, Alan B. Alegro filed a petition in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife, Rosalia
(Lea) A. Julaton. The RTC AND CA grant the petition However,n May 28,
2001, the Republic of the Philippines through the SG, filed a Motion to
Dismiss[3] the petition, alleging that the petitioner failed to prove that
he had a well-founded belief that Lea was already dead
and that the ca must
which was, however, denied by the court for failure to comply with Rule 15
of the Rules of Court.
Issue: Won the decision oI the RTC and CA granting the petition oI alegro is valid.

Ruling: the sc ruled that a person seeking a judicial declaration presented only the Barangay
Captain, but did not present the persons Irom whom he allegedly made inquiries and did not even
make inquiries with his parents-in-law who knew oI his wiIe`s abandonment oI the conjugal
abode cannot be considered as a suIIicient evidence to declare presumptive death.
there was a Iailure to prove a well-Iounded belieI that the wiIe was already dead.



.ldez vs. republic CR 180863 September 8, 2003 p.e
F.cts: Petitioner married Sofio on January 11, 1971 in Pateros, Rizal. n 1971,
petitioner gave birth to the spouses only child, Nancy. In March 1972, Sofio left
their conjugal dwelling.Three years passed without any word from Sofio. In ctober
1975, Sofio showed up at Bancay 1
st
. He and petitioner talked for several hours and
they agreed to separate. They executed a document to that effect.
[1]
That was the
last time petitioner saw him. After that, petitioner didnt hear any news of Sofio, his
whereabouts or even if he was alive or not.
[2]

chanroblesvirtuall awlibrary chanrobles virtuallawlib
Believing that Sofio was already dead, petitioner married Virgilio Reyes on June 20,
1985.
[3]
Subsequently, however, Virgilios application for naturalization filed with the
United States Department of Homeland Security was denied because petitioners
marriage to Sofio was subsisting.
[4]
Hence, on March 29, 2007, petitioner filed a
Petition before the RTC of Camiling, Tarlac seeking the declaration of presumptive
death of Sofio. The RTC denied her petition. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration


ssue: Whether . judici.l decl.r.tion of presumptive de.th under f.mily code is still necess.ry
even if it does not yet exist durin the m.rri.e.

Rulin: The court ruled th.t . judici.l decl.r.tion of presumptive de.th is . new requirement
under the f.mily code. T WAS NOT REQURED N THE C CODE which the f.mily code
.mended. In sum, we hold that the Petition must be dismissed since no decree on
the presumption of Sofios death can be granted under the Civil Code, the same
presumption having arisen by operation of law. However, we declare that petitioner
was capacitated to marry Virgilio at the time their marriage was celebrated in 1985
and, therefore, the said marriage is legal and valid.
chanroblesvirtuall awlibrary chanrobles virtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition is DENIED.
chanroblesvirtuall awlibrary chanrobles virtuallawlibrary
Villanueva
Facts: Petitioner rlando Villanueva and private respondent
Lilia Canalita-Villanueva got married on April 13, 1988 in
Puerto Princesa, Palawan.n November 17, 1992,
rlando filed with the trial court a petition for annulment
of his marriage alleging that threats of violence and
duress forced him into marrying Lilia, who was already
pregnant; that he did not get her pregnant prior to the
marriage; that he never cohabited with her after the
marriage; and that he later learned that private
respondent's child died during delivery on August 29,
1988.
Lilia prayed for the dismissal of the petition. . Private
respondent also prayed for the payment of moral and
exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs.
Rtc and ca rendered their decision in favor of lilia
Villanueva. rlando appealed to the sc.


Issue: ) whether the subject marriage may be annulled on
the ground of vitiated consent; and (b) whether
petitioner should be liable for moral and exemplary
damages as well as attorney's fees and costs.

Ruling:the sc AGREED WITH THE DECISION oI the ca that the petitioner Ireely and
voluntarily married private respondent We also agree that private
respondent is entitled to attorney's fees. Article 2208
(11) of the Civil Code provides that attorney's may be
awarded where the court deems it just and equitable
under the circumstances, as in the instant case.

However, the awards of moral and exemplary damages
were not honored for lack of factual and legal basis.
There is nothing in the records or in the appealed
decision that would support an award of moral
damages.In justifying the award, the Court of Appeals
merely said thus:

It is not difficult to imagine the suffering of the appellee
from the baseless portrayal of her by the appellant as the
perpetrator of fraudulent schemes to trap an unwilling
mate. As private respondent is not entitled to moral
damages, ,147947, she is not entitled to exemplary
damages. This is clear in Article 2234 of the Civanayil
Code,
Anaya vs. palaroan
36 SCRA 37 G.R. No. L-27930 November 26, 1970

Facts: plaintiff Aurora and defendant Fernando were
married on 4 December 1953. ). Fernado filed an action
for annulment with the cfi but it was dismissed. Aurora
filed a counter claim for the annulment of the marriage
and for moral damage. that "the non-divulgement to her
of the pre-marital secret on the part of defendant
constitute 'FRAUD', in obtaining her consent in their
marriaGE with the basis under art. 85 of the Civil Code.
Issue: The main issue is whether or not the non-disclosure
to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship
with another woman is a ground for annulment of
marriage.
Ruling: page 294 persons.


NUEL G. LELOR, cralawG.R. No. 179620
Vs. rtc

Facts: Petitioner Manuel G. Almelor (Manuel) and respondent Leonida Trinidad (Leonida) were
married onJanuary 29, 1989 at the Manila Cathedral. AIter eleven (11) years oI marriage,
Leonida Iiled a petition with the RTC in Las Pias City to annul their marriage on the ground that
Manuel was psychologically incapacitated to perIorm his marital obligations. to her woes was his
concealment to her oI his homosexuality. Dr. Valentina del Fonso Garcia, a clinical psychologist,
was presented to prove Leonidas claim.
the RTC granted the petition Ior annulment
Manuel Iiled a notice oI appeal which was, however, denied due course. Undaunted, he Iiled a
petition Ior annulment oI judgment with the CA. the present Petition Ior Annulment oI
Judgment is hereby DENIED. Manuel seeks the indulgence oI the supreme Court to
consider his petition beIore the CA instead as a petition Ior .ertiorari under Rule 65.


Issues:
WON THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION
OF THE TRIAL COURT AS REGARDS THE ORDER DECLARING THE
MARRIAGE AS NULL ANDVOID ON THE GROUND OF PETITIONERS
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY AND THE ORDER TO FORFEIT THE
SHARE OF PETITIONER IN HIS SHARE OF THE CONJUGAL ASSETS.

Ruling: The sc ruled that 1he stringent rules of procedures may be relaxed to serve the
demands of substantial justice and in the Courts exercise of equity jurisdiction. cralawFor
reasons oI justice and equity, this Court has allowed exceptions to the stringent rules governing
appeals.
|35|
It has, in the past, reIused to sacriIice justice Ior technicality.
|36|

cralawConcealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to annul a marriage, not
homosexuality per se
cralawThe trial court declared that Leonidas petition Ior nullity had no basis at all because the
supporting grounds relied upon can not legally make a case under Article 36 of the Family
ode
To reiterate, homosexuality 5er se is only a ground Ior legal separation. It is its concealment that
serves as a valid ground to annul a marriage.
|64|
Concealment in this case is not simply a blanket
denial, but one that is constitutive oI Iraud. It is this Iundamental element that respondent Iailed
to prove.

cralawIn a valid marriage, the husband and wife jointly administer and enjoy their community
or conjugal property.
In the case under review, the RTC decreed a dissolution oI the community property oI Manuel
and Leonida. In the same breath, the trial court IorIeited Manuels share in Iavor oI the
children.Considering that the marriage is upheld valid and subsisting, the dissolution and
IorIeiture oI Manuels share in the property regime is unwarranted. They remain the joint
administrators oI the community property.

the petition is GRANTED. The appealed Decision is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and the petition in the trial court to annul the marriage is DISMISSED.

Republic vs. CuisonNel.r CR 133676 N.rch 31, 2006, 486 SCRA
177
Facts: Norma and Eulogio were married n March 27, 1965.
n August 19, 1996, Norma filed for declaration of nullity
of her marriage on the ground of Eulogio's psychological
incapacity to comply with his essential marital
obligations. Eulogio failed to file an answer. Twelve days
later, or on January 20, 1997, the RTC rendered its
decision nullifying the marriage of Norma and Eulogio.
!0994307, represented by the ffice of the Solicitor
General (SG), filed an appeal with the CA, contending
that the evidence presented are not sufficient to declare
the marriage void. The ca denied the petition and
affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Issue: WHETHER R NT THE ALLEGED PSYCHLGICAL
INCAPACITY F RESPNDENT IS IN THE NATURE
CNTEMPLATED BY ARTICLE 36 F THE FAMILY CDE.
Ruling: It was not sufficiently proved that Eulogio was really
incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of
a psychological nature, and not merely physical. The
Court
cannot presume psychological defect from the mere fact
of Eulogio's immaturity, habitual alcoholism, unbearable
jealousy, maltreatment, constitutional laziness, and
abandonment of his family. These circumstances by
themselves cannot be equated with psychological
incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code
.It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a
disordered personality which make Eulogio completely
unable to discharge the essential obligations of the
marital state She failed to establish the fact that at the
time they were married, Eulogio was already suffering
from a psychological defect which in fact deprived him of
the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and
its concomitant responsibilities
Further, no other evidence was presented to show
that Eulogio was not cognizant of the basic marital
obligations as outlined in Articles 68 to
72,[39] 220,[40] 221,[41] and 225[42] of the Family
Code.


WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRNTED. The
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August
11, 1999 in CA-G.R. CV No. 55538, affirming the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
43, Dagupan City in Civil Case No. CV-96-01061-D, dated
January 20, 1997, isREVERSED and SET SIDE. The
complaint of Norma Cuison-Melgar in Civil Case No. CV-
96-01061-D is DISISSED

Domino vs. CA et .l 226 SCRA S72 p.CE72. 260per 266,271

FACTS: n May 29, 1991, private respondent Delia Soledad
A. Domingo filed a petition before the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig entitled "Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
and Separation of Property" against petitioner Roberto
Domingo.
ISSUE:
RULING:
The import oI Article 40 oI the Family Code, as explained in the case oI omingo vs. CA,
is that Ior purposes oI remarriage, the only legally acceptable basis Ior declaring a
previous marriage an absolute nullity is a Iinal judgment declaring such previous marriage
void, whereas, Ior purposes oI other than remarriage, other evidence is acceptable.