G.R. No.

47101

April 25, 1941

GODOFREDO BUCCAT, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
LUIDA MANGONON DE BUCCAT, respondent-appellee.
D. Feliciano Leviste, D. Tomas P. Panganiban y Doa Sotera N. Megia for the petitioner.
Doa Luida Mangonon de Buccat on her own behalf.
HORRILLENO, J.
This issue has been elevated to the Supreme Court by the Court of First Instance of Baguio, as
the issue it raises is purely a question of law.
On March 20, 1939, the petitioner instituted the present case, and, in spite of due summons, the
respondent failed to appear. Therefore, the petitioner was allowed to present its evidence, after
which the lower court ruled in favour of the respondent. Hence, this appeal.
Petitioner seeks the annulment of his marriage to respondent Luida Mangonon de Buccat on
November 26, 1938, in the City of Baguio, on the grounds that he had consented to the marriage
because the respondent had averred that she was a virgin.
The decision of the lower court is based upon the following facts:
The parties met in March of 1938. After several meetings, they got engaged on September 19 of
the same year. On November 26 of the same year, the petitioner married the respondent in the
Catholic cathedral of the City of Baguio. After cohabiting for around eighty-nine days, the
respondent gave birth to a child on February 23, 1989. As a result of this, petitioner abandoned
respondent and did not return to marital life with her.
We see no reason to overturn the original ruling. In fact, it is unlikely that the petitionerappellant had not even suspected the pregnant state of the respondent, for, as he testified, her
pregnant condition was well advanced. Therefore, it is unnecessary to assess the fraud that
petitioner-appellant speaks of. Of little merit is petitoners argument that it is common to see
people from the countryside with well-developed stomachs, especially as he was a first-year law
student.
Marriage is among our most sacred institutions: it is the foundation of our society. It is therefore
necessary to present clear and convincing evidence to annul it. There is no such evidence in this
case.
Finding the original ruling in consonance with the law, it must be confirmed, and hereby we
confirm it, in its entirety, with costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Avancea, Pres., Imperial, Diaz y Laurel, MM., concur.

Translated by: F. J. Bautista