Persons HW # 9 (Grounds for Voidable Marriages)
VOIDABLE MARRIAGES; GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT
Art 45 FC. [GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT] A marriage may be
annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the
marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage
annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one,
and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the
parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority
over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of
twenty-one (21) , such party freely cohabited with the other and
both lived together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after
coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and
wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud (Art 46),
unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts
constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband
and wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force,
intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having
disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with
the other as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the
marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and
appears to be incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible
disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. (85a)
1. Action to annul marriage
a. In rem – concerning status of parties, which affects
whole world.
b. Res – relation between parties, or the marriage ties.
c. Jurisdiction over such depends on nationality or
domicile, not place of celebration.
2. Annulment and legal separation
Annulment Legal separation
Circumstance existing at time After celebration
of marriage
Terminates martial bond Cannot be.
Cannot be set aside to restore Can be.
marriage
3. Want of parental consent
a. 18- 21 y.o.
b. Voidable
c. May be ratified when party turns 21 and constitutes
cohabitation.
d. The law does not expressly allow parent whose
consent is required to ratify marriage. CComm says no
such ratification can be made by the parent, since
recognition of such would encourage disregard of
requirement of parental consent before marriage
celeb. They can just ask for consent later on. We
believe, however, that ratification of by parent whose
consent in wanting must be recognized as sufficient to
validate marriage IF they give it before party reaches
21. This is because Art 47 FC recognizes right of
parent to ask for annulment before party reaches 21.
4. Party of unsound mind. When incapable of intelligently
consenting  defect in consent; (v nullity under psych incap
 incapable of fulfilling obligations)
a. Test – WON the party at the time of marriage celeb
was capable if understanding nature and
consequence of marriage
i. Not WON they can procreate
ii. Must exist at time of marriage. Not prior
nor after.
iii. Somnambulism included.
b. Weakness of mind not affect validity of marriage, if it
does not deprive party to understand and appreciate
consequences.
c. Insane delusions or impulses (e.g. kleptomaniac) not
included.
i. If both parents of a party are known to be
insane, does not count if he was normal at
that time.
d. Burden of proof on person who alleging insanity of
the other,
i. Once proven, assumed to continue.
ii. If recovery or lucid interval, burden of
proof is on person alleging it.
e. Intoxication during time of marriage makes in
voidable.
f. Ratification can be done by insane spouse after
regaining reason.
i. Right of action to ratify is not given to sane
spouse, because it is assumed that he knew
of the insanity of other party and is
estopped, unless he really did not know (Art
47 (2)).
ii. Can be done at any time before death of
insane spouse.
iii. No provision of ratifying marriage by
continuing cohab with insane spouse after
learning of insanity.
iv. Safe to assume that sane would not have
married insane if he knew. Unfair to keep
sane chained to such a marriage.
g. Art 36 FC can be invoked to declare marriage null and
void if mental condition incapacitates from complying
with marital obligs.
5. Marriage thru fraud. General rule that parties ascertain facts
that form the incentive to mutual undertaking. Contract of
marriage is difficult to avoid because of fraud that ordinary
ones.
a. See Art 47 FC.
6. Force or intimidation. Marriage entered in fear of death of
bodily harm is voidable.
a. BUT if to escape punishment for seduction, not
annulled, even if consent was obtained thru threat of
prosecution. Same for obstruction from admission to
the bar.
b. There is no duress when a man is forced to marry a
woman after seducing her to repair his wrong. No
duress when a woman marries a man because
threatened to reveal to parents an indiscretion she
had committed during youth. No duress when party
has ample time for deliberation before the marriage.
7. Physical incapacity. Impotent.
a. Requisites:
i. Exists at time of marriage
Persons HW # 9 (Grounds for Voidable Marriages)
ii. Continues to time of annulment
proceedings
iii. Incurable
iv. Unknown to other party
b. Incapacity due to old age not included.
c. Impotence means lack of power to copulate, absence
of functional capacity for sexual act.
d. Sterility not included, which is pathological condition
which negates reproduction. Almost impossible to
diagnose at time of marriage.
e. Pain during sex counts.
f. Doctrine of Triennial Cohab – when wife be a virgin
and apt after 3 years of cohab, husband will be
presumed impotent, and burden is upon him to
overcome presumption and does not prevent
impotency to be proved by any other proper
evidence.
g. Action barred when:
i. A party had knowledge of incurable
impotence before marriage; since it implies
he renounces copulation, which is a
personal right.
ii. Both spouses impotent, and this existed
before marriage, continues, and incurable;
since it means impotent plaintiff could not
have expected copulation. (Come to court
with clean hands).
8. Sexually transmitted disease. New concept by FC.
a. Requisites:
i. Exist at time of marriage
ii. Serious
iii. Incurable
iv. Unknown to other party
b. Reasons:
i. Health concerns
ii. Possible avoidance of sex
iii. Failure to attain purposes of procreation
and raising family.
c. NOT subject to ratification by continued cohab.
9. Prejudicial question. Annulment can be used on bigamy cases
to show that consent for second marriage is obtain thru duress,
intimidation, violence.
10. Ratifying voidable marriage. Continued cohab by party with
right to bring action (insane, once healed; sane, when unknown
to him/her),, after cause of nullity has ceased to exist.
a. No definite period for cohab.
b. Need not last for whole period of prescription
(remedy) for action, since here action will be barred
by prescription, not ratification (right of action).
c. Once ratification takes place, marriage becomes
perfectly valid. Subsequent change of mind cannot
revive nullity, even if prescription period has not yet
lapsed.
d. No remedy when no right of action.
11. Marriages not subject to ratification.
a. One spouse is incurably impotent (no procreation
forever).
b. One spouse has incurable STD (no procreation
forever).
c. Sane marries insane without knowledge of insanity
(No law on this).
i. Insane can ratify marriage after recovery,
but sane cannot be barred from asking for
annulment, even if he has continued to
cohabit after learning of insanity. Sane does
not have right of action to ratify.
12. Grounds for annulment of marriage provided in Art 85 CC were
expanded to include affliction with serious and incurable STD
(Art 45(6)); and other badges of fraud committed by concealing
STD of whatever nature (Art 46(3)); or of drug addiction,
habitual alcoholism, homo or lesbian (Art 46(4)).
13.
Art 46 FC. [FRAUD] Any of the following circumstances shall
constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:
(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the
other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the
marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband;
(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its
nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or
(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or
homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank,
fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds
for action for the annulment of marriage. (86a)
1. (3) and (4) are new.
2. Other cases of fraud. Inclusio unius est exclusion alterius – no
other case of fraud can be ground for annulment.
3. Conviction of crime.
a. Crime involved moral turpitude
b. There was an actual conviction (no minimum penalty
required for FC)
4. Tolentino: Wisdom of this is doubtful. There is really a deceit as
to character and has no essential bearing upon marital relations
of the parties. The concealment of a woman of a previous life of
prostitution would be a more serious fraud that mere
conviction of estafa. But this code made estafa more a ground
than prostitution.
5. Concealment of pregnancy. Procreation is important object of
marriage, children shall be known with certainty by parents as
pure offspring of their own.
a. If not misrepresentation, no annulment. If it is
obvious naman that the woman was preggy during
marriage, and husband denies this, not believable of
fraud.
b. When man had sex with wife before marriage, and
wife is pregnant (tho he may not be father), no
annulment, since he was party to the unchastity.
c. Deceit as to paternity.
i. Massach decisions: Annulment denied,
since he was party to incontinence, and he
failed to investigate.
ii. Connecticut decisions: above is like
punishing person during the course of the
entire marriage, for an act of his which is
not at all illegal or immoral (basically, not
his fault). This is what Tolentino believes.
6. Chastity of wife. Chastity is of equal importance as other
personal qualities. Mere incontinence of woman prior to
marriage that does not result to pregnancy, does not prevent
her from being a faithful wife and bearing to her husband pure
offspring of his loins. Thus previous immorality of a wife
cannot be ground for annulment
Persons HW # 9 (Grounds for Voidable Marriages)
7. No intent to consummate. Americans: Sex is a marital right and
obligation. Annullable when party does not tell lack of intent to
partner, but then carries it out. Philippines: not count.
8. Concealment of diseases.
a. Art 45(6): STD must be serious and incurable. Even if
party did not conceal this, other party can ask for
annulment. It is an independent ground. Marriage is
not ratified by continued cohab.
b. Art 46(3): STD need not be serious nor incurable;
“regardless of its nature”. Instead, it must have been
concealed, thus not independent ground. It is the
fraud that makes it annullable, not the STD per se.
Thus, marriage can be ratified under Art 45(3) if ok
spouse continues to cohabit.
c. Effect of cure. Does not bar action for annulment.
Because defect is the fraud, not the disease itself.
Art 47 FC. [PERSONALITY TO FILE; ESTOPPEL] The action for
annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and
within the periods indicated herein:
(1) For causes mentioned in number 1 of Article 45 by the party
whose parent or guardian did not give his or her consent, within
five years after attaining the age of twenty-one, or by the parent or
guardian or person having legal charge of the minor, at any time
before such party has reached the age of twenty-one;
(2) For causes mentioned in number 2 of Article 45, by the same
spouse, who had no knowledge of the other's insanity; or by any
relative or guardian or person having legal charge of the insane, at
any time before the death of either party, or by the insane spouse
during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity;
(3) For causes mentioned in number 3 of Article 45, by the injured
party, within five years after the discovery of the fraud;
(4) For causes mentioned in number 4 of Article 45, by the injured
party, within five years from the time the force, intimidation or
undue influence disappeared or ceased;
(5) For causes mentioned in number 5 and 6 of Article 45, by the
injured party, within five years after the marriage. (87a)
1. Principle of estoppel.
a. If sane knew of other’s insanity, he is estopped, when
they lived for several years and they had children. He
who comes to court must come with clean hands.
b. If person knew of incurable impotence of other party
at time of marriage, cannot ask for annulment, since
he is considered as having renounced copulation, a
personal right.
c. When one knew of STD.
2. Ratification and prescription. Rati cures defect existing at time
of marriage and validates marriage. Pres bars remedy because
of lapse of time provided by law for bringing action.
a. After a voidable marriage has been ratified, it can no
longer be set aside even if prescription period has
not yet expired.
Art 48 FC. [APPEARANCE OF PROSECUTION] In all cases of
annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court
shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to
appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion
between the parties and to take care that evidence is not
fabricated or suppressed.
In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment
shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of
judgment. (88a)
1. Source: Art 88 CC.
2. Purpose: prevent collusion
a. Judgment annulling marriage or granting legal
separation based on stipulation of facts may be
promulgated when possibility of collusion is remote,
as when the two wives are conflicting (i.e. Cardenas v
Cardenas).
b. Policy of law. Calling for intervention of state
attorney in cases of uncontested proceedings for
legal separation and annulment of marriage; to
emphasize that marriage is a special contract, a social
institution wherein State is interested; that
interruption cannot depend of parties themselves.
Art 344 RPC. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage,
seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. — The
crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except
upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without
including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any
case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint
filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or
guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly
pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape,
the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed
upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable
to the coprincipals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of
the above-mentioned crimes.
PD 612 Sec 11. [INSURANCE CODE] The insured shall have the right
to change the beneficiary he designated in the policy, unless he has
expressly waived this right in said policy.
VOIDABLES; GROUNDS; LACK OF PARENTAL CONSENT
MOE VD DINKINS
FACTS:
A New York Domestic Relations Law provided that all male marriage
license applicants between 16 and 18 and all female applicants
between 14 and 18 must obtain written consent from both parents
(that are living). Section 15.3 of the law requires women between
the ages of 14 and 16 to obtain judicial approval of the marriage in
addition to parental consent.
Plaintiff Raoul Roe, 18, and Plaintiff Maria Moe, 15, had a one year
old son, Plaintiff Ricardo Roe. Plaintiffs live together as a family unit
and desire to be married to cement their family unit and remove the
stigma of illegitimacy from their son. Maria requested consent from
her widowed mother to marry Raoul, but she refused, allegedly
because she wished to continue receiving welfare benefits for Maria.
Proposed plaintiff Pedro Doe, 17, and Christina Coe, 15, reside in the
home of Pedro’s father and step-mother. Christina is eight months
pregnant with Pedro’s child. Christina’s mother refused a Christina’s
Persons HW # 9 (Grounds for Voidable Marriages)
request to marry Pedro, and arranged for Christina to have an
abortion. Christina refused to do so, and consequently her mother
told her she wished to have nothing more to do with her and was
leaving the country to return to the Dominican Republic.
ISSUE: Does the law requiring parental consent to marry deprive
Plaintiffs of the liberty guaranteed.
HOLDING:
The law is constitutional because the State has a legitimate interest
in protecting minors from immature decision making. Previous case
law has recognized a constitutional liberty interest in marriage, but
has not addressed the marriages of minors. The constitutional rights
of children cannot be equated with adults for three reasons: a) the
peculiar vulnerability of children; (b) the inability to make critical
decisions in an informed and mature matter; (c) the importance of
the parental role in child-rearing.
This law should not be examined under a strict scrutiny standard,
but rather it must be determined if there is a rational relationship
between the means chosen and the legitimate state interests
advanced. The parent consent requirement ensures that at least one
mature person will participate in the marriage decision. Because of
this and minors’ lack of experience, perspective, and judgment, the
law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Plaintiffs also allege that the courts as a non-interested party would
be in a better position to judge than parents that are potentially
biased. However, the law assumes that parents will act in the best
interests of their children. Plaintiffs also claim that this law should
be analogized with contraception and abortion laws, and that the
law denies them the means with which to legitimize their children.
However, this ignores the fact that the law is only a postponement
to the right to marry.
VOIDABLES; GROUNDS; INSANITY
***KATIPUNAN V TENORIO (1937)
FACTS:
Plaintiff brought an action to annul their marriage. Defendant and
plaintiff were married on 1919. Plaintiff alleges that he wasn’t aware
of the insanity of the defendant at the time of the marriage but it
was apparent after the celebration of the marriage (1926)
ISSUES:
1. WON Rita Tenorio was mentally sound at the time of her
marriage.
NO.
2. WON being diagnosed as of unsound mind after marriage can
be grounds for annulment.
a. Principles of declaration of insanity o Generally
insanity admitted, or once proved, is presumed to
continue, the burden to prove the allegation is on the
person making it
i. Once insanity has existed, it is sought to be
proved that a subsequent act of its subject was
done in a lucid interval
b. Admittance of plaintiff that during the nuptial
ceremony, he did not have the least suspicion that his
bride was suffering from insanity
i. Coupled with the testimony of Ursula Paz,
indubitably show that at the time she wedded
the plaintiff, the defendant was mentally sound
c. Declaration of plaintiff o He noticed the insanity only
several days after the marriage
i. He decided to continue living with her, because
he believes that one day it would be cured
ii. Waited until 1926 when the defendant, after her
4th delivery of birth, had so severe an attack of
madness to warrant hospitalization until
declared incurable and wife cohabited
continuously for 7 years
d. Presumption of the validity of the marriage
e. Sec. 30
i. Annullable Marriages – A marriage may be
annulled for any of the following causes, existing
at the time of the marriage: (c) That either party
was of unsound mind, unless such party, after
coming to reason, freely cohabited with the
other as husband and wife
f. MARRIAGE VALID
SUNTAY V COJUANCO-SUNTAY (1998)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/132524.ht
m
FACTS:
In 1958, Emilio and Isabel got married. They had 3 kids, Margarita
Guadalupe, Isabel Aquino and
Emilio Aguinaldo. However, after 4 years, the marriage turned sour
and Isabel filed a case against Emilio for parricide. In retaliation,
Emilio petitioned for legal separation for his schizophrenia (which
has already manifested even before the celebration of the
marriage). In 1967, the TC granted said petition with the ff.
dispositive portion:
“WHEREFORE, the marriage celebrated between Emilio Aguinaldo
Suntay and Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay on July 9, 1958 is hereby
declared null and void and of no effect as between the parties.”
In 1990, Cristina (grandmother of Isabel Aquino –respondent) died
without a will. Isabel prayed that
she be appointed as administratix of the estate. However, her
legitimacy is being contested because of the declaration of nullity
between her parents. Federico, on the other hand, is contending
that he is the surviving spouse of the decedent. Hence the case.
ISSUES:
1. Whether a declaration of nullity or an annulment was indeed
granted to Isabel Aquino’s parents?
ANNULMENT- Apparently, there was a conflict between the
dispositive portion and the body. As such, the entire case must
be read so as to construe the real intent (like in LegMeth). In
the body, it was clearly stated that: “The marriage of Emilio
Aguinaldo Suntay and Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay was annulled on
the basis of Art. 85 par. 3 of the Civil Code which refers to
marriages which are considered voidable.” Art. 85 (3) allows
annulment if either of the parties was of unsound mind. The
Civil Code was followed in the case and NOT the family code;
and in the Civil Code, only Arts. 80, 81, 82 and 83 were grounds
for a void marriage.
2. WON Isabel Aquino is a legitimate daughter of her parents
thus qualified to be an administratix of her grandmother’s
estate?
Persons HW # 9 (Grounds for Voidable Marriages)
YES- Having established that the marriage was only annulled,
Isabel Aquino is deemed legitimate. A voidable marriage, is
considered valid and produces all its civil effects, until it is set
aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action for
annulment. Juridically, the annulment of a marriage dissolves
the special contract as if it had never been entered into but the
law makes express provisions to prevent the effects of the
marriage from being totally wiped out. The status of children
born in voidable marriages is legitimate (Art. 89). The terms
“annul” and “null and void” have different legal connotations
and implications. Annul means to reduce to nothing; annihilate;
obliterate; to make void or of no effect; to nullify; to abolish; to
do away with whereas null and void is something that does not
exist from the beginning.
VOIDABLES; GROUNDS; CONSENT OBTAINED
THROUGH FRAUD
***TEVES V COMELEC (2009)
BUCCAT V BUCCAT (1941)
FACTS:
This issue has been raised to this superiority by the Court of First
Instance of Baguio, as 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 their marriage had with the
defendant Luisa Buccat Mangonon of the November 26, 1938, in
Baguio City, the grounds that, in consenting to the marriage, he did
so because the defendant had assured him that she was virgin.
In the lower court's decision reveals the following facts: The plaintiff
met the defendant in March 1938. After several interviews, both
were committed on19 September of that year. On 26 November the
same year, the plaintiff married the defendant in the Catholic
catedrla Baguio City. Desoues of living maritally for the space of
eighty-nine days, the defendant gave birth to a child of nine months,
the February 23, 1939. Following this event, the plaintiff abandoned
the defendant and did not return to do with her marital life.
ISSUE: WON her concealment of pregnancy is a ground for marriage
annulment under fraud.
HOLDING:
NO. We do not see any reason to vacate the judgment appealed.
Indeed, it is improbable the plaintiff's allegation that the appellant
and had not even suspected the gravid state of the defendant, being
this, as has been proven, highly advanced in pregnant condition.
Therefore, not necessary to estimate the fraud that speaks the
appellant. He argued for this in the sense that countries not
uncommon to find people of the abdomen developed, it seems
childish to merit our consideration, especially as the applicant was a
freshman in law. Marriage is a most sacred institution: it is the
foundation on which society rests. You can stop this are necessary to
clear and reliable. In this case no such evidence.Finding the
judgment appealed in accordance with law, must be confirmed, as
confirmed by thepresent, in all its parts, with costs against the
appellant. So ordered.
Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a marriage, a
sacred institution in which the State is interested. In this case, the
court did not find any proof that there was concealment of
pregnancy constituting a ground for annulment; it was unlikely that
Godofredo, a first- year law student, did not suspect anything about
Luida’s condition considering that she was in an advanced stage of
pregnancy when they got married.
Assertion of Godofredo that he had not even suspected Luida’s
pregnancy, highly unlikely:
 Luida was in an advanced state of pregnancy at the time they
were married (late into 2Nd trimester/early into 3rd
 Godofredo’s contention (not rare to find persons with
developed abdomens) – foolish, especially considering
thatGodofredo was a first year law student.
 Marriage is a most sacred institution. It is the foundation upon
which society rests. To nullify it would need clearand authentic
proof. In this case no such proof exists
AQUINO V DELIZO (1960)
FACTS:
Aquino filed a complaint for annulment of marriage with Delizo, on
the grounds of fraud, wherein Delizo concealed from Aquino the fact
that she was pregnant by another man during their marriage on
December 27, 1954, and sometime in April 1955, gave birth to
Catherine Aquino. RTC dismissed complaint due to non presentation
of evidence, but was excused of his negligence, but still, the
complaint was dismissed. Court of Appeals affirmed RTC’s ruling,
saying that it was not impossible for plaintiff and defendant to have
had sexual intercourse during their engagement so that the child
could be their own (respondent’s defense), and that it was
impossible that Aquino could not have noticed/suspected that
Delizo was pregnant when they got married. He filed a motion for a
new trial and presented the ff:
1. Affidavit of Cesar Aquino, his brother who was living with Delizo
at the time they met, admitting he was the father of 3 children with
Delizo, and that they hid her pregnancy from the
plaintiff up to the time of the marriage.
2. Affidavit of Conchita Delizo admitting her pregnancy by Cesar
Aquino and hiding the pregnancy.
3. Birth certificates of the 3 children. 4. Pictures of Delizo’s natural
plumpness
ISSUE: WON the marriage can be annulled on the grounds of the
concealment of pregnancy by another man at the time of marriage.
HOLDING:
Yes. Concealment by the wife of the
fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by another
man other than her husband constitutes fraud, and is ground for
annulment of marriage. Ruling on Buccat can’t apply here, because
Delizo was then only 4 months pregnant, and it cannot be said that
her pregnancy was readily apparent then, since she was ‘naturally
plump’ (kaloka ang euphemism). (6th month pa usually nagiging
noticeable)
Plaintiff could hardly be expected to know, merely by looking,
whether or not she was pregnant at the time of their marriage more
Persons HW # 9 (Grounds for Voidable Marriages)
so because she must have attempted to conceal the true state of
affairs -
According to medical authorities:
5TH month of pregnancy: enlargement of a woman’s abdomen is
hardly noticeable, and if noticeable, may be attributed to fat
formation on the lower part of the abdomen. Physicians can claim
33% positive diagnosis of pregnancy.
6TH month of pregnancy: enlargement of abdomen becomes more
general and apparent. Physicians can claim 50% positive diagnosis of
pregnancy -
No support of the statement that plaintiff and defendant could have
had sexual intercourse before marriage, and therefore the child
could be their own - Evidence sought to be introduced at the new
trial can be sufficient to sustain the fraud alleged by plaintiff.
RULING:
Concealment of respondent of pregnancy at time of marriage with
another man constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment. Court
remanded case for new trial and decision complained is set aside.
See Art 46(2) FC.
ANAYA V PALAROAN (1970)
DOCTRINE: Non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship
with another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances
that would constitute a ground for annulment; and it is further
excluded by the last paragraph of article 86 CC, providing that "no
other misrepresentation or deceit as to ... chastity" shall give ground
for an action to annul a marriage.
FACTS:
1. Aurora Anaya appealed the dismissal of the Juvenile &
Domestic Relations Court of Manila of her complaint for the
annulment of her marriage to Fernando Palaroan. Fernando
had earlier filed for annulment on the ground that his consent
had been obtained through force and intimidation. This
complaint was dismissed: the validity of their marriage was
upheld, and Aurora’s counterclaim was granted.
2. Anaya:
a. While the negotiations for the amount of the
counterclaim was underway, Fernando revealed to
Aurora that, several months prior to their marriage,
he had a premarital relationship (assumption: sex)
with a close relative of his. This non-divulgement,”
according to Aurora,“ definitely wrecked their
marriage.”
b. That Fernando only intended to marry Aurora so that
he could evade marrying his close relative, from
whose family he was receiving threats forcing him to
marry her.
c. That he had never intended to perform the marital
duties and obligations and had even covertly made
up his mind against living with her.
d. That he had courted a third girl with whom he later
cohabited and had several children with over a span
of nine years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a husband’s non-disclosure to his wife of his
premarital relationship with another woman is a ground for
annulment of marriage.
HOLDING:
The Court voted to affirm the lower court and uphold the validity of
their marriage on the following grounds:
A. In marriage, the law prohibits only specific frauds, of which
“non-divulgement” is not part.
Art. 85 and 86 of the Civil Code refer to fraud as a vice of consent,
which may be grounds for the annulment of marriage. However,
only specific frauds – misrepresentation as to identity, non-
disclosure as to a previous conviction and concealment of pregnancy
– constitute grounds for the annulment of marriage.
The Court reasoned that it was clear the Congress, in writing these
provisions, intended to exclude all other frauds and deceits. To
emphasize this intention further, Art. 86 contains the interdiction:
“No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune
or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action
for the annulment of marriage.”
The Court also stressed the state interest in the institution of
marriage, saying, “The law does not assuage her grief after her
consent was solemnly given, for upon marriage she entered into an
institution in which society, and not herself alone, is interested.”
Art. 46 FC also specifically mentioned that “no other
misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune, or
chastity”, further barring Anaya’s action for annulment.
B. The cause for the second fraud charge.
That Fernando had courted her and obtained her hand without
intending to comply with his marital duties and obligations – had
long since lapsed. The Court said, “Any secret intention on the
husband’s part not to perform his marital duties must have been
discovered by the wife soon after the marriage.” Aurora should
have brought her charges based on that fraud within four years
after the marriage, which was celebrated in December 1953.
However, since this ground was only pleaded in 1966, it was
declared barred.
VOIDABLES; GROUNDS; VIOLENCE ETC.
RUIZ V ATIENZA (1941)
FACTS:
Jose Ruiz, the plaintiff, and Pelagia Atienza, the defendant, were
sweethearts in 1938. Nine months later, they had a baby outside of
marriage. After the baby’s birth (Nov 14, 1939), Pelagia’s father,
cousin-in-law and three other persons visiting Ruiz in his boarding
house and convincing him into marrying Pelagia. After some
discussion, they –including Pelagia—secured a marriage license and
solemnized their wedding that same evening at an Aglipayan church.
Four days later, Ruiz brought suit trying to annul the marriage
alleging that he had been forced into wedlock. He said he only went
with them that afternoon because he was “convinced” due to the
following reasons:
1. He was threatened by Pelagia’s father with a balisong;
Persons HW # 9 (Grounds for Voidable Marriages)
2. Her cousin-in-law, Atty. Villavicencio, told him that if he doesn’t
marry Pelagia, he would have trouble in the bar exams because
many were rejected on the ground of immorality;
3. Atty. Villavicencio’s promise that he would be physically “safe”
if he goes with them.
ISSUE:
WON being forced into marriage (due to threats and intimidation) is
enough reason to annul their marriage.
HOLDING:
No, their marriage cannot be annulled.
First, the Court reviewed his arguments:
Re. balisong. The threats from the father only came after he said
that he cannot marry Pelagia due to the fact that he was already
married. This made Mr. Atienza grab him by his necktie, exclaiming
“So you mean to fool my daughter!” Flares of anger are
understandable and also, it wasn’t sufficiently established that the
father displayed any balisong or made any threat against the life of
Ruiz.
Re. bar admission. As to the threat to obstruct his admission to the
Bar, it is not considered such duress as to constitute an annulment
of marriage. (“and where a man marries under the threat of, or
constraint from, a lawful prosecution for seduction or bastardy, he
cannot avoid the marriage on the ground of duress” - 38 C.J., sec. 70,
p. 1305)
Re. promise of safety. Promise of him being “safe” was only said to
make him feel secure since he was afraid of the possible bodily harm
he might endure in retaliation for the dishonor he inflicted upon her
family.
XXX
Ruiz makes it look like he was practically kidnapped until after the
marriage ceremony, but he had many occasions to escape. He also
had companions in the house whom he could’ve asked for help. In
fact, there was even a policeman.
The evidence doesn’t warrant that his consent was obtained
through force or intimidation. Court then cites the provision of the
Marriage Law (sec 30 Act No. 3613) that refers to “force” or
“violence”. “Force” or “violence” doesn’t include mere intimidation,
at least where it doesn’t in legal effect amount to force or violence.
Furthermore, Atienza’s attorney has successfully met the issues,
upholding the judge’s conclusion of fact that neither violence nor
duress attended the marriage celebration.
VOIDABLES; GROUNDS; IMPOTENCE
SARAO V GUEVARA (1940)
FACTS:
Plaintiff and defendant were married and on the same day, plaintiff
tried to have carnal knowledge of defendant. The later showed
reluctance and begged him to wait until evening. Although he found
the orifice of her vagina sufficiently large for his organ, she
complained of pains in her private part later that night. Plaintiff also
noticed oozing of some purulent matter offensive to the smell
coming from defendant’s vagina.
Every attempt to have carnal access to his wife proved to be futile
because she always complained of pains in her genital organs.
Upon the advice of the physician, defendant’s uterus and ovaries
were, with consent of the plaintiff removed due to the presence of a
tumor. The removal of said organs rendered defendant incapable of
procreation.
Plaintiff declared that from the time he witnessed the operation, he
lost all desire to have access with his wife and thus filed this
complaint for annulment of marriage on the ground of impotency.
ISSUE: WON their marriage can be annulled on the ground of
physical impotency.
HOLDING:
NO.
Plaintiff wants to construe the phrase ‘physically incapable of
entering into the married state’ as with the capacity to procreate.
Impotency is not the ability to procreate but the ability to copulate.
Defect must be one of copulation and not of reproduction. Bareness
will not invalidate the marriage.
The removal of the organs rendered her sterile but it by no means
made her unfit for sexual intercourse. It would appear that it was
the memory of this first unpleasant experience with her that made
him gave up the idea of having carnal knowledge of her.
Defendant was not impotent at the time she married the plaintiff for
the existence of tumor did not necessarily render her incapable of
copulation.
Plaintiff also contends that his consent of the marriage was procured
through fraud in that the defendant did not reveal to him that she
was afflicted with a disease in her sex organs. According to the
Court, this contention in untenable since fraud is not alleged in the
complaint and has not been proved at the trial.
JIMENEZ V REPUBLIC (1960)
FACTS:
Ver 1. Joel Jimenez filed for annulment of his marriage w/ Remedios
Canizares for impotency. He says that her vagina was too small to
allow penetration. Respondent, on the other hand, refused to
undergo physical exam to determine capacity for copulation (even if
ordered by court). Because of this, Zamboanga court entered a
decree annulling the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant.
Ver 2. Joel filed a complaint praying for a decree of annulment of his
marriage to Remedios upon theground that the orifice of her vagina
was too small for penetration. This condition made Joel leave
theconjugal home two nights and one day after they had been
married. He alleged that it existed at the timeof marriage. Remedios
did not file an answer and so the court directed the Zamboanga City
Atty. toinquire whether or not there was collusion and intervene to
see that evidence is not fabricated. Remedioswas also ordered to
submit to a physical examination, which failed as she had refused to
be examined.
HOLDING:
Rule: Article 45 (5): A marriage may be annulled for any of the
following causes, existing at the time of the marriage… that either
party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with
Persons HW # 9 (Grounds for Voidable Marriages)
the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be
incurable;

Application: In the case at bar, the annulment of the marriage in

question was decreed upon the sole testimony of the husband who
was expected to give testimony tending or aiming at securing the
annulment of his marriage he sought and seeks. Whether the wife is
really impotent cannot be deemed to have been satisfactorily
established, because from the commencement of the proceedings
until the entry of the decree she had abstained from taking part
therein. Although her refusal to be examined or failure to appear in
court show indifference on her part, yet from such attitude the
presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence could not
arise or be inferred because women of this country are by nature
coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to a physical examination
unless compelled to by competent authority. This the Court may do
without doing violence to and infringing in this case is not self-
incrimination. She is not charged with any offense. She is not being
compelled to be a witness against herself.

"Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed.

The presumption is in favor of potency." The lone testimony of the
husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse is
insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together
as husband and wife.

Dispositive Portion: The decree appealed from is set aside and the
case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in
accordance with this decision, without pronouncement as to costs.

TSOI V CA, SUPRA

VOIABLES; GROUNDS; STD