Anaya vs. Palaroan No.

L- 27930 November 26, 1970 Facts: Plaintiff Aurora and defendant Fernando were married on December 4, 1953. Fernando filed an action for annulment of their marriage on January 7, 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation. On September 23, 1959, judgment was rendered dismissing his complaint and upholding the validity of Aurora s counterclaim that Fernando divulged to Aurora that several months prior to their marriage he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. Because of the non-divulgement on the part of the defendant, plaintiff asserts that the marriage that was solemnized between them constituted fraud, in obtaining her consent, within the contemplation of No. 4 of Article 85 of the Civil Code. She requests for annulment of the marriage and for moral damages. On the other hand, Fernando denied the allegations in paragraph 4 of the complaint; he denied having committed any fraud against her. He counterclaimed for damages for the malicious filing of suit. He did not pray for the dismissal of the complaint but for its dismissal with respect to the alleged moral damages. Then, Aurora filed a reply with answer to the counterclaim stating defendant s pretended love towards her and his intention of not fulfilling his marital duties and obligations. The court dismissed the complaint and denied its reconsideration on October 7, 1966 due to inadequate evidence. Issue: Is the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his premarital relationship with another woman a ground for annulment of marriage? Decision: No. The non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his premarital relationship with another woman is not a ground for annulment of marriage. Such is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment; and it is further excluded by the last paragraph of the article, providing that no other misrepresentation or deceit as to chastity shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. Moreover, the state regards marriage as indissoluble and sacred, being the foundation upon which society rests. Thus, it is to be cautious and strict in granting annulment of marriage.

Buccat vs. Buccat No. 47101 April 25, 1941 Facts: Plaintiff Godofredo Buccat met the defendant Luida Mangonon de Buccat in March 1938. On November 26, 1938, they got married in a Catholic Cathedral in Baguio City. After 89 days of living together as husband and wife, defendant gave birth to a child on February 23, 1939. Thereafter, plaintiff abandoned her and never returned. On March 20, 1939, plaintiff wishes the annulment of his marriage with defendant on the ground of fraud since defendant concealed her pregnancy at the time of the marriage; she assured him that she was still a virgin. The defendant failed to appear in court despite having been duly summoned, in effect, plaintiff was allowed to present evidence wherein the lower court held to be favorable to defendant; hence, this appeal. Issue: Will the marriage be annulled on the ground of fraud as plaintiff requests? Decision: No. Plaintiff s claim that he did not even suspect the pregnancy of defendant was held to be unbelievable, it having been proven that the latter was already in an advanced stage of pregnancy (7th month) at the time of their marriage. Thus there is no fraud even if the pregnancy was caused by another man other than her husband since concealment was impossible on her 7th month of pregnancy, at the time of their marriage. Moreover, marriage is considered as indissoluble and sacred institution, being the foundation on which the society rests. To annul it, clear and irrefutable evidence are necessary. In this case, no such evidence was presented.

Aquino vs. Delizo No. L-15853 July 27, 1960 Facts: This is a dismissed complaint for annulment which was filed on September 6, 1955 and was based on the grounds of fraud. The plaintiff Fernando Aquino alleges that defendant Conchita Delizo, on the date of their marriage on December 27, 1954, concealed from the latter the fact that she was pregnant by another man and after four months, defendant gave birth to a child that plaintiff disowns. Defendant claimed that the child was conceived out of lawful wedlock between her and petitioner. On June 16, 1956, the trial court dismissed the complaint since no birth certificate was presented to show that the child was born within 180 days after the marriage between the parties, and holding that concealment of pregnancy as alleged by plaintiff does not constitute such fraud as would annul a marriage. The plaintiff filed another petition to reopen for reception of additional evidence but it was denied. Then, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals which held that there has been excusable neglect in plaintiff s inability to present the proof of the child s birth, through her birth certificate, and for that reason the court a quo erred in denying the motion for reception of additional evidence. However, on the thought that it was not possible for plaintiff and defendant to have had sexual intercourse during their engagement so that the child could be their own, and finding unbelievable plaintiff s claim that he did not notice or even suspect that defendant was pregnant when he married her, the appellate court, in spite of that, dismissed the complaint. On March 17, 1959, plaintiff filed a motion praying that the decision be reconsidered or if denied, that the case be remanded to the lower court for a new trial; herewith attached are supporting documents that plaintiff s brother, Cesar Aquino, is in fact the father of the child. But the Court of Appeals denied the motion; hence, the plaintiff brought the case to this Court thru the present petition for certiorari. Issue: Will the case be remanded to the lower court for a new trial? Decision: Yes. Under the new Civil Code, concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment of marriage. In the case at bar, the defendant wife was alleged to be only more than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage to plaintiff. At that stage, we are not ready to say that her pregnancy was readily apparent , especially since she was naturally plump or fat as alleged by the plaintiff. Moreover, according to medical authorities, even on the 5th month, the enlargement of a woman s abdomen is hardly noticeable since the enlargement is limited to the lower part of the abdomen, or if noticed, may be attributed only to fat formation on the lower part of the abdomen. It is only on the 6th month of pregnancy that the enlargement of the woman s abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent. Thus, the plaintiff is telling the truth when he said that he is naturally plump, he could hardly tell that she was pregnant at the

time of their marriage, merely by looking, more so because she must have attempted to conceal the truth. Moreover, the evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial combined with what has already been adduced would be sufficient to sustain the fraud alleged by plaintiff. Thus, the Court of Appeals should not have denied the motion praying for a new trial simply because defendant failed to file her answer hereto. Such failure of the defendant cannot be taken as evidence of collusion, especially since a provincial fiscal has been ordered to represent the Government precisely to prevent such collusion. Hence, justice would be better served if a new trial was ordered.

Menciano vs. Neri San Jose No. L-1967 May 28, 1951 Facts: Matilde Menciano, in her and her children s behalf, filed a motion for declaration of heirs, alleging that she is the widow of the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose, to whom she was married on September 28, 1944 before Rev. Father Isaias Edralin, S.J.; that they lived together before the said marriage, hence, Carlo Magno Neri was born on March 9, 1940, the child having enjoyed the status of a recognized natural child; that their second child Faustino Neri, Jr., was born on April 25, 1945 and was legitimized by the subsequent matrimony of his parents, thus he is a legitimate child in lawful wedlock. On the other hand, on an amended answer, Paz Neri San Jose (the executrix of the deceased) and Rodolfo Pelaez (designated universal heir in the will of the deceased dated December 19, 1940), denied the substantial allegations of Menciano s motion for declaration of heirs and further alleged that the deceased was suffering from senile dementia from 1943 which became worse a year later; that the marriage between Menciano and the deceased was in violation of the legal provisions and requisites because of the latter s age, sickness, and bombardment; that Menciano took advantage of the deceased s condition, forced the latter to marry her by means of deceit and threat; and that the deceased was congenitally sterile and impotent. Moreover, the defendants also filed a counterclaim for the sum of 286,000 in cash, for jewels and certain properties which, as presumed, were retained and illegally disposed of by Matilde Menciano. Issue: (1) Was the marriage between the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde Menciano valid? (2) Are the children Faustino Neri, Jr. and Carlo Magno Neri the legitimate children of the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde Menciano? (3) Did Matilde Menciano have in her possession and illegally disposed of the cash, jewels, and certain properties aforementioned? Decision: (1) Yes. The marriage between the two is evidenced by: the 2 applications for a marriage license, dated September 28, 1944, the first one, signed by the deceased to marry Menciano and the other one, signed by Menciano to marry the deceased; the certificate for immediate issuance of marriage license applied for, signed by the Acting Local Civil Registrar and the deceased and Menciano; the marriage contract signed by the deceased and Menciano as contracting parties, Rev. Isaias Edralin as solemnizing officer, and the witnesses L. B. Castaños and Samson Pañgan. The 4 documents are official and public; there validity can be successfully assailed only by strong, clear, and convincing oral testimony. In this case, the oral evidence presented by the defendants is not convincing so as to declare the said marriage invalid. A mere glance at the signatures of the deceased in the aforesaid documents will convince anyone that they could not have

been written by a man who is almost unconscious and physically and intellectually incapacitated, as the defendants witnesses represent him to have been. Also, the tests pertaining to testamentary capacity were applied to show the capacity to contract marriage of the deceased. Although the said doctrine relates to testamentary capacity, there is no reason why is should not be applied to the capacity to contract marriage, which requires the same mental condition. Thus, the court did not err in declaring valid the marriage of the deceased and Menciano. (2) Yes. Faustino Neri, Jr. is a legitimate child of the deceased and Menciano. The requisite for potency being met, the necessary conclusion is that the child Faustino Neri, Jr., is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate son of the deceased with Menciano in lawful wedlock. No. The court declared that Carlo Magno Neri has not been acknowledged as a natural child and, consequently, cannot be legitimized by the subsequent marriage of his parents. (3) No. After a careful and exhaustive review of evidence, the trial court correctly reached the conclusion that such allegation has not been substantiated. The testimonies of mother and son- Paz Neri San Jose and Rodolfo Pelaez regarding the sum of money are contradictory. Moreover, Clotilde Galarrita de Labitad s testimony is unbelievable. With regard to the jewels, no satisfactory evidence was presented to prove that Menciano misappropriated them.