82.

Buenaventura vs ca Gr#:127358 march 31, 2005

Facts :

Since Noel married Isabel, he seemed to give his career as

a banker and businessman the priority and was unable to
relate not only as a husband to Isabel but also as a father to
their only son.

He appeared to have no inclination in making their

marriage work and he deceived Isabel by professing on her
true love instead of revealing that there was only a marital
pressure to marry her.

It’s Noel who initiated the filing of the petition for the
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of his and
his wife’s psychological incapacity.

The RTC found Noel psychologically incapacitated,

declared the marriage void ab initio and ordered for the
payment of atty’s fees as well as moral and exemplary
damages for the mental anguish, fright, besmirched
reputation and serious anxiety of the wife.

Issue : Whether or not RTC and the CA correct in awarding

moral, exemplary damages and attorneys fees..

Ruling :

Those courts are not correct in awarding moral damages.

The acts of Noel in failure to comply the marital obligations
that made the basis of finding him Psychologically
incapacitated are products of his incapacity or inability
and hence negates the award of moral damages as such
award presupposes a willful act.

Since psychological incapacity means that one is truly

incognitive of the basic marital covenants that one must
assume and discharge as a consequence of marriage, it
removes the basis for the contention that the petitioner
purposely deceived the private respondent.

If the private respondent was deceived, it was not due to a

willful act on the part of the petitioner.

Therefore, the award of moral damages was without basis

in law and in fact.

Since the grant of moral damages was not proper, it

follows that the grant of exemplary damages cannot stand
since the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages are
imposed in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages

Neither can there be a ground for attorney’s fees and

litigation expenses.

His act in filing the complaint for the annulment of his

marriage cannot be considered as unduly compelling the
private respondent to litigate, since both are grounded on
petitioner’s psychological incapacity.

Furthermore, since the award of moral and exemplary

damages is no longer justified, the award of attorney’s fees
and expenses of litigation is left without basis.