Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Buccat v. Mangonon de Buccat (1941).docx

Buccat v. Mangonon de Buccat (1941).docx

Ratings: (0)|Views: 63 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: Andre Philippe Ramos on Jan 15, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Digest Author: Dodot 
Buccat v. Mangonon de Buccat (1941)Petition:
Appeal from Decision of Court of First Instance, Baguio
Godofredo Buccat
Luida Mangonon de Buccat
J. Horilleno
25 April 1941
March 1938
Godofredo and Luida meet
19 September 1938
The two become engaged
26 November 1938
The two get married, Catholic cathedral of Baguio City
Godofredo claims that he agreed to the marriage promise based on Luida’s assurance that
she was a virgin
23 February 1939
89 days after marriage, Luida gives birth to a son
Godofredo promptly left Luida and never returned to a married life with her
20 March 1939
Godofredo initiated a case in Baguio CFI, praying that the marriage be annulled on grounds that there hadbeen fraud [that Luida had claimed that she was a virgin]
Although duly summoned by the trial court, Luida failed to appear; Godofredo was allowed to present his proof 
 but the court decided in favor of Luida anyway.
Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts:
Art 45 [Family Code]
A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over butbelow twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or personhaving substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one,such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with theother as husband and wife;(3)
That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife
;(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same havingdisappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacitycontinues and appears to be incurable; or(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to beincurable. (85a)
Art 46 [Family Code]
Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moralturpitude;(2)
Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other thanher husband
;(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of themarriage.NOTE: Obviously the Family Code was not yet in effect at the time, but in case it is asked how the case would turn out today, thesetwo provisions are to serve as the basis.
Should the marriage between Godofredo and Luida be annulled on the ground that there had been fraud (concealment of pregnancy) at the time of marriage?

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->