GR # 47101 April 25, 1941

Case: Buccat v Mangonan de Buccat

A. Nature of the Case
*An appeal from a decision of the court

The lower court ruled the matter in favour of

the defendant.
Reason:

of First Instance of Baguio

*Annulment of marriage on the ground

Although, the defendant didnt appear after

that when agreeing to the marriage

present evidence. But the lower court favoured

promise the defendant assured him of

the defendant based on the facts of the case

her virginity
Note:
Court of First Instance (Now RTC)
*It raises a question of law
*1941 case
*Civil Code of Spain 1889 was used
*Civil code took effect on Aug. 30, 1950
B. Facts:
The plaintiff, Godofredo Buccat, a
first year law student met defendant
Luida Mangonan de Buccat, March
1938. They were engaged on Sept. 19,
1938 and finally got married on Nov. 26,
1938 in Catholic Cathedral of the City of
Baguio.
On Feb. 23, 1939, the defendant
gave birth to a child of nine months after

being summoned which allowed the plaintiff to

presented. For annulment to proceed, the

piece of evidence provided must be clear and
reliable. No such evidence can be found in the
case.
Ruling in CA
The CA didnt overturn the original
ruling.Considering that the defendant was in
the advance stage of pregnancy.It is unlikely
that the plaintiff may not be able to notice the
manifestation of pregnancy on the part of the
defendant.
C. Issue

living together as husband and wife for

*WON the annulment be granted to

89 days. As a result, the plaintiff

Godofredo(Plaintiff) on the ground that Luisa

abandoned the defendant and did not

(defendant) concealed her pregnancy before

return to their marital life.

The plaintiff seeks annulment of

marriage

his marriage with the defendant on the

D. Ruling (final court's disposition)

ground that she assured him of her

*Finding the original ruling in accordance with

virginity.

law, it must be confirmed as hereby confirm in

*Parties involved
RTC plaintiff- Godofredo and

its entirety with cost against the appellant. So it

is ordered.

defendant-Luida

*The SC affirmed lower courts decision. Cost

CA appellant-Godofredo and

to plaintiff-appellant.

appellee-Luida

E. Doctrine laid down in the ruling

SC petitioner- Godofredo and

respondent-Luida

Marriage is a most sacred institution. It is the

foundation upon which society rests. To nullify

*Ruling in CFI (RTC )

it would need clear and authentic proof.