P. 1


|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by macafra

More info:

Published by: macafra on Sep 06, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC GR No. 47101 April 25, 1941 GODOFREDO Buccato, plaintiff-appellant, vs..

LUID MANGONON OF Buccato, defendant-appellee. D. Feliciano Leviste, D. Tomas P. Sotera Panganiban and Mrs. N. Megia for appellant. Dona Luisa Buccato Mangonon of their own representation. HORRILLENO, J. : This issue has been raised to this superiority by the Court of First Instance of Baguio, with only raises a question purely of law. On March 20, 1939 the plaintiff Inico the present case, in which the defendant failed to appear, despite having been duly summoned. Therefore, allowed the plaintiff to present evidence, the lower court decision, the matter in favor of the defendant. Hence this appeal. The applicant requests the annulment of his marriage had with the defendant Luisa Buccato Mangonon of the November 26, 1938 in Baguio City, on the grounds that, in consenting to the marriage, it was because the defendant had assured him that she was virgin. The decision of the court below reveals the following facts: The complainant knew the defendant in March 1938. After several interviews, both were committed on 19 September of that year. On 26 November the same year, the plaintiff married the defendant in the Catholic catedrla Baguio City. Maritally Desoues to live for about eighty-nine days, the defendant gave birth to a child of nine months, February 23, 1939. Following this event, the petitioner left the defendant and did not do with her marital life. We see no reason to overturn the original ruling. Indeed, it is unlikely the plaintiff and appellant's allegation that had not even suspected the serious condition of the defendant, with this, as is proved in pregnant condition advanced. As there is no need to estimate the fraud that speaks the appellant. He argued for this in the sense that countries not uncommon to find people from developed abdomen, it seems puerile to merit our consideration, inasmuch as the plaintiff was a freshman law. Marriage is a most sacred institution: it is the foundation on which society rests. To cancel, clear evidence is necessary and reliable. In this case no such evidence. Finding the original ruling in accordance with law, must be confirmed, as this is confirmed, in its entirety, with costs against the appellant. So ordered. Avanceña, CJ, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.

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)//-->