You are on page 1of 4

Aurora Anaya V.

Fernando Palaruan

further excluded by the last paragraph providing that no

Nov. 26, 1970

other misrepresentation or deceit as to xxx chastity xxx

Topic: Effect of fraud (FC 45 (3), FC 46, NCC 1338)

shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage.


Hence, the case at bar does not constitute fraud and

Facts:

therefore would not warrant an annulment of marriage.

Dec. 4, 1953: Aurora and Fernando got married. Then by


Jan. 7, 1954 Fernando filed for an annulment on the

Orlando Villanueva V. CA & Lilia Villanueva

grounds that his consent on the marriage was obtained

Oct. 27, 2010

thru force and intimidation. However, this was dismissed

Topic: Effect of Force, Intimidation, and Undue Influence

thus their marriage remained valid. Also, the court

(FC 45(4), NCC 1335)

granted Auroras counterclaim on the annulment filed by


Fernando. While the negotiation for the counterclaim was

Facts: Orlando and Lilia got married on April 13, 1988 in

on going, Fernando divulged to Aurora that several

Puerto Princesa, Palawan. Then on November 17, 1992

months prior their marriage he had a pre-marital

he filed an annulment of their marriage alleging that

relationship with his close relative. Aurora contends then

threats of violence and duress forced him into marrying

that such non-divulgement of a pre-marital secret

Lilia. He further detailed that, he received harassing

constituted fraud in obtaining her consent for their

phone calls from Lilia, strangers, and unwanted visitors

marriage. Thus, for this ground she filed for an

who would wait for him after his classes. Aside from this,

annulment.

there was a certain Ka Celso, a member of the NPA, who


was said to have been hired by Lilia to threaten him and

Issue: WON the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband

who accompanied him to her home province in Palawan

of a pre-marital relationship with another woman is a

to marry her. He also said that he was defrauded into

ground for annulment of marriage

believing that she was pregnant prior to their marriage


which caused him to marry her. He further alleged to the

Held: No.

court that he didnt get her pregnant prior to marriage or

The concealment of such relationship is not included in

having cohabited with her after their marriage. The said

the enumeration provided for in the Civil Code which the

child was said to have died during delivery. All these

Court cited. Under Art. 85 of the Civil Code (FC 45(3)): a

allegations were denied by Lilia. She showed proof of

marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,

Orlandos affection, expression of love and concern

existing at the time of the marriage: xxx consent of either

towards her in 13 letters. He acknowledges having sent 7

party is obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards,

of the letters showed but denied the 6. Regarding the

with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud,

death of the fetus, Lilia was able to show proof that the

freely cohabited with the other xxx. This was further

child indeed died due to premature delivery and there

limited exclusively by law to those kinds of fraud

was a certification from the Civil Registry.

enumerated in Art. 86 of Civil Code (FC 46) and it is

Issue: Whether or not there is duress and fraud in

was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ for

obtaining his consent for their marriage.

copulation. This condition of her genitals was said to have


existed at the time of their marriage and continues to

Held: No. The Court ruled that his allegations were

exist. Thus, causing him to leave the conjugal home for

untenable and that this annulment case was filed in order

two nights and one day after they got married. Remedios

for the pending bigamy case filed against him by Lilia to

was summoned by the Court and required her to submit

be dismissed. His allegation of fear was not clearly

to a physical examination to determine her physical

established as well as the intimidation being done against

capacity for copulation and file a medical certificate within

him by Lilia and her party because he being a security

ten days. Remedios refused and failed to comply and

guard was taken into consideration by the Court for he

judgment was rendered solely based on Joels evidence.

knows self defense. The threats he said he received were

The city attorney filed a motion for reconsideration upon

not sufficient to make him not freely marry Lilia. Fraud

the ground that her impotency was not established

cannot be raised as a reason for annulment as there was

satisfactorily.

no proof. Furthermore, it took him four years to file an


action which merits to Lilias contention that they

Issue: WON the marriage may be annulled on the

cohabited. The Court did not believe him when he stated

strength only of the lone testimony of the husband.

that he never got an erection during their tryst and his


counsel conceded that Orlando and Lilia had a sexual

Held: The Court ruled that whether the wife is really

relationship. Absence of cohabitation is also not a ground

impotent cannot be deemed to have been satisfactorily

to annul such marriage. The failure to cohabit becomes

established, because from the commencement of the

relevant only if it arises as a result of the perpetration of

proceedings until the entry of the decree she had

any of the grounds for annulling the marriage, such as

abstained from taking part therein. Although her refusal to

lack of parental consent, insanity, fraud, intimidation, or

be examined or failure to appear in court show

undue influence x x x. Since Orlando failed to justify his

indifference on her part, yet from such attitude the

failure to cohabit with Lilia on any of those grounds, the

presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence

validity of his marriage must be upheld.

could not arise or be inferred, because women of this


country are by nature coy, bashful and shy and would not

Jimenez V. Canizares

submit to a physical examination unless compelled to by

August 31, 1960

competent authority. A physical examination in this case

Topic: Effect of Physical incapacity/impotence

is not self incrimination. She is not charged with any


offense. She is not being compelled to be a witness

Facts: In the CFI of Zamboanga (June 17, 1955), Joel

against herself. Impotency being an abnormal condition

Jimenez prays for a decree to annul his marriage to

should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor

Remedios Canizares contracted on August 3, 1950. His

of potency. The lone testimony of the husband that his

grounds were that the orifice of her genitals or vagina

wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse is

insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them

behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy,

together as husband and wife. The decree appealed is

beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of

set aside and remanded to the lower court.

context)s after the analysis and collection of data, hence,


it is a sufficient ground for declaration of nullity of

Veronica Alcazar V. Rey Alcazar

marriage. RTC denied because the acts of the

October 13, 2009

respondent in not communicating with petitioner and not


living with the latter the moment he returned home from

Facts: This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to

Saudi Arabia despite their marriage do not lead to a

reverse the Decision dated 24 May 2006 of the Court of

conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There

Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 84471, affirming the Decision

is absolutely no showing that his "defects" were already

dated 9 June 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of

present at the inception of their marriage or that these are

Malolos City, Branch 85, in Civil Case No. 664-M-2002,

incurable. CA also denied because no other evidence

which dismissed petitioner Veronica Cabacungan-

was presented to prove respondents personality disorder

Alcazars Complaint for the annulment of her marriage to

that made him completely unable to discharge the

respondent Rey C. Alcazar.

essential obligations of the marital state. Hence, this

Veronica married Rey on Oct. 11, 2000 and they

petition.

lived for five days in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro which


is the hometown of Reys parents. They went back to

Issue: Whether or not, as defined by the law and

Manila but Rey did not live with Veronica in Tondo,

jurisprudence,

Manila. He later on left for Riyadh for work; while he was

incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.

there he did not contact his wife. Then when he returned


after a year, he didnt go directly home in Tondo but rather

respondent

is

psychologically

Held:

went to Mindoro. Thus, petitioner concluded that

The Complaint originally filed by petitioner before the

respondent was physically incapable of consummating

RTC was for annulment of marriage based on Article 45,

his marriage with her, providing sufficient cause for

paragraph 5 of the Family Code, which reads: ART. 45. A

annulment of their marriage pursuant to paragraph 5,

marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,

Article 45 of the Family Code. Respondent has been

existing at the time of the marriage:x x x x (5) that either

uncooperative to the investigation. Witnesses were

party was physically incapable of consummating the

presented by Veronica and one of them was clinical

marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues

psychologist Dr, Nedy Tayag. Dr. Tayag testified that Rey

and appears to be incurable; x x x. Article 45(5) of the

was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (a

Family Code refers to lack of power to copulate.

condition deemed to be grave, severe, long lasting in

Incapacity to consummate denotes the permanent

proportion and incurable by any treatment. People

inability on the part of the spouses to perform the

suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder are known

complete act of sexual intercourse. Non-consummation of

to have a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or

a marriage may be on the part of the husband or of the

wife and may be caused by a physical or structural defect


in the anatomy of one of the parties or it may be due to
chronic illness and inhibitions or fears arising in whole or
in part from psychophysical conditions. It may be caused
by psychogenic causes, where such mental block or
disturbance has the result of making the spouse
physically incapable of performing the marriage act. No
evidence was presented in the case at bar to establish
that respondent was in any way physically incapable to
consummate his marriage with petitioner. Petitioner even
admitted during her cross-examination that she and
respondent had sexual intercourse after their wedding
and before respondent left for abroad. There obviously
being no physical incapacity on respondents part, then,
there is no ground for annulling petitioners marriage to
respondent. Petitioners Complaint was, therefore,
rightfully dismissed. Presumption is always in favor of the
validity of marriage. In the case at bar, petitioner failed to
persuade the Court that respondents failure to
communicate with petitioner since leaving for Saudi
Arabia to work, and to live with petitioner after returning to
the country, are grave psychological maladies that are
keeping him from knowing and/or complying with the
essential obligations of marriage. Petition is DENIED.