Buccat v Buccat de Mangonon GR No. 47101 GODOFREDO BUCCAT, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

April 25, 1941

LUIDA MANGONON DE BUCCAT, defendant-respondent.

HORRILLENO, J.: FACTS: 1. It was a. b. c. established before the trial court: The Plaintiff met the defendant in March 1938 After several interviews, both were committed on September 19 of that year On November 26 the same year, the plaintiff married the defendant in a Catholic Cathedral in Baguio d. They, then, cohabited for about eighty-nine days e. Defendant gave birth to a child of nine months on February 23, 1939 f. Following this event, Plaintiff and Defendant separated. 2. On March 20, 1939 the plaintiff filed an action for annulment of marriage before the CFI of Baguio City. The plaintiff claimed that he consented to the marriage because the defendant assured him that she was virgin. 3. The trial court dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal. BASICALLY: Godofredo Buccat (Plaintiff) and Luida Mangonon (Defendant) got married on November 26, 1938. Luida gave birth after 89 days and on March 20, 1939 Godofredo filed for annulment of marriage before the CFI because he was led to believe by Luida that she was a virgin. The trial court dismissed the complaint, so Godofredo appealed. ISSUE: Whether or not there was fraud in obtaining the consent of Plaintiff to the marriage? DECISION: There is no fraud because: The Supreme Court states that: “We see no reason to overturn the ruling appealed.” It is unlikely that the plaintiff, Godofredo, had not suspected that the defendant, Luida, was pregnant. (As she gave birth less than 3 months after they got married, she must have looked very pregnant even before they were married.) Since Godofredo must have known that she was not a virgin, the marriage cannot be annulled. The Sacred Marriage is an institution: it is the foundation on which society rests. To cancel it, reliable evidence is necessary. *Consent freely given: ARTICLE 4 and 45 FC.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful