Anaya vs.

Palaroan
Justice Reyes
G.R. No. L-27930, November 26, 1970
FACTS:
 December 4, 1953: Aurora and Fernando were married
 January 7, 1954: Fernando filed an action for annulment on the ground that his consent was obtained through
force and intimidation
 September 23 1959: Fernando’s complaint was dismissed and the validity of the marriage to Aurora was
upheld
o Also granting Aurora’s counterclaim as to her invoking Par. 4 of Article 85 of the Civil Code
 Par. 4, Article 85 – A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing
at the time of the marriage:
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the
other as her husband or his wife, as the case may be;

 The “fraud” that Aurora claims was that “Fernando had divulged to her that several
months prior to their marriage, he had pre-marital relationships with a close relative of
his; and that “the non-divulgement to her of the aforementioned pre-marital secret on the
part of defendant that definitely wrecked their marriage, which apparently doomed to fail
even before it had hardly commenced.”
 Fernando denied having had a pre-marital relationship with a close relative and he avers that he would under
no circumstances live with Aurora. He states that he had escaped her and from her relatives the day after the
wedding. He also denies having committed any fraud against her.
 Fernando counterclaimed for damages for the malicious filing of the suit.
 Aurora filed a reply to the counterclaim of Fernando where she states the ff.:
o Prior to their marriage, Fernando pretended to shower her with love and affection because she was
the only girl available to marry – to evade marrying the close relative of his whose immediate
members of family were forcing him to marry said relative
o He contracted a marriage where he never intended to perform marital duties and obligations from
the very beginning
o Fernando had clandestine intentions – premarital relationship with relative, then contracted a
dubious marriage with Aurora, then afterwards courted a third woman with whom he cohabited with
and had several children within the whole range of nine years that their civil case had been litigated

ISSUE/S:
1. W/N the non-disclosure of pre-marital relationships to a wife by her husband is a ground for annulment of
marriage

HELD:
1. NO
 Article 85 Par. 4 talks about “fraud” as being a cause for action for annulment, but the court states that Article
86 of the Civil Code lists down specific circumstances which are considered to be accepted fraudulent actions
that are referred to in Par. 4 of Art. 85:

Article 86 – Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in number 4 of the
preceding article:
(1) Misrepresentation as to the identity of one of the contracting parties;
(2) Non – disclosure of the previous conviction of the other party of a crime involving
moral turpitude, and the penalty imposed was imprisonment for two years or
more;
(3) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was
pregnant by a man other than her husband
 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.
 If the framers intended for other fraudulent claims to be accepted as grounds for annulment, they would not
have expressly stated them in Art. 86
 Aurora’s second set of claims wherein she states that Fernando had no intention of fulfilling his marital duties
were wrongly included in her reply because it should have been accepted as an entirely new and additional
“cause of action” – a cause of action which should have been filed as an action for annulment based on fraud
within the four years after their marriage. Their wedding was on December 4, 1953 and this said ground was
only pleaded in 1966, 9 years after their marriage – this is declared already barred

Ruling:
“For the foregoing reasons, the appealed order is hereby affirmed.”