UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Franco Luis G.

Lopez
Persons Professor Beth Pangalangan
Aquino v. Delizo
G.R. No. L-15853 – July 27, 1960
Supreme Court of the Philippines

Topic: Consent Obtained by Fraud Cases—Grounds for Annulment (Void and Voidable Cases)

Articles invoked:
Article 46, Family Code
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)

Case Summary
The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Fernando Aquino. [F]ernando Aquino and Conchita
Delizo were married when she was four (4) months pregnant by another man (Fernando's brother, Cesar). He
filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance to annul their marriage on the basis of fraud, but the case
was dismissed for his failure to present the birth certificate of the child born. Aquino appealed to the Court
of Appeals which also dismissed the petition, on the ground that it was not impossible for Aquino and Delizo
to have sexual relations during their engagement. Hence the petition.

The Supreme Court held that since Delizo was naturally plump, Aquino could not have known that she was
pregnant at the time of their marriage. The Court remanded the case for new trial and set aside the decision
of the Court of Appeals.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Franco Luis G. Lopez
Persons Professor Beth Pangalangan
December 27, 1954 - Fernando Aquino married Conchita Delizo. On said date of marriage (Delizo was
pregnant by another man--a fact she concealed from Aquino)
April 1955 - Conchita Delizo gave birth to a child
September 6, 1955 - A complaint was filed by Aquino, on the basis of fraud for the annulment of their
marriage
The Court of First Instance noted that no birth certificate was presented to show that the child was born
within 180 days after marriage between the parties, and held that concealment of pregnancy as alleged by
Aquino does not constitute such fraud as would annul a marriage, and therefore dismissed the
complaint.
Through a petition to reopen for reception of additional evidence, Aquino tried to present the certificates of
birth of the child born on April 26, 1955, which he had failed to secure earlier and produce before the trial
court through excusable negligence.
The petition, however, was denied by the Court of Appeals, on the following grounds:
(1) There has been excusable neglect to present the proof of the child's birth, through ehr birth certificate,
and the Court of First instance erred in denying the motion for reception of additional evidence
(2) On the theory, however, the Court of Appeals held that it was not impossible for Aquino and Delizo to
have had sexual intercourse during their engagement, which means that the child could be their own
(3) The Court of Appeals did not believe Aquino's claim that he did not notice or even suspect that Delizo
was pregnant when he married her
March 17, 1959 - Aquino filed a motion for reconsideration and if said motion will be denied, that the case
be remanded to the lower court for new trial. In support of the motion for reconsideration, Aquino adduced
the following documents:
(1) Affidavit of Cesar Aquino (petitioner's own brother) admitting that he is the father of defendant's first
born, Catherine Bess Aquino, and that he and defendant hid her pregnancy from Fernando Aquino at the
time of their marriage
(2) Birth Certificate of defendant's first born, Catherine Bess Aquino showing her date of birth to be April
26, 1955; Birth Certificates or Carrolle Ann Aquino (second child), Chris Charibel Aquino (third child) of
Cesar Aquino and defendant;
(3) Pictures of defendant showing her natural plumpness as early as 1952 to as late as November, 1954, the
November 1954 photo itself does not show defendant's pregnancy, which must have been almost four
months old at the time the picture was taken
The Court of Appeals ordered Delizo and Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal to answer the motion for
reconsideration. As both the defendant and the fiscal failed to file an answer, and stating that it "does not
believe the veracity of the contents of the motion and its annexes," the Court of Appeals denied the motion
Hence the petition for certiorari

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

Whether or not the dismissal of Aquino's complaint can be sustained
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Franco Luis G. Lopez
Persons Professor Beth Pangalangan

No, it cannot.

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 ground for annulment of marriage.
(Article 85, Paragraph 4; in relation to Article 86, Paragraph 3). At that stage, however, her pregnancy was
not readily apparent, especially since she was fat. It is only on the 6th month of pregnancy that the
roundness of the abdomen becomes more general and apparent. And since Delizo was claimed to be fat, he
could hardly be expected to know, merely by looking, whether or not she was pregnant at the time of their
marriage, moreso because she must have attempted to conceal the true state of affairs. Even physicians and
surgeons, with the aid of the woman herself who shows and gives her subjective and objective symptoms,
can only claim positive diagnosis of pregnancy in its 5th or 6th month.

The Court of Appeals also said that it was not impossible for Aquino and Delizo to have had sexual
intercourse before they got married and therfore the child could be their own, but that statement finds neither
support nor justification in the record.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court opined that the evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial,
taken together with what hass already been adduced would be sufficient to sutain the fraud alleged by
plaintiff.

The Court of Appeals should not have denied the motion praying for new trial simply because defendant
failed to file her answer. Such failure of the Delizo cannot be taken as evidence of colluision, especially
since a provincial has been ordered to represent the Government, precisely to prevent such colluusion.

The Supreme Court believes that justice would be better served if a new trial were ordered.

RULING

The Court of Appeals' decision is set aside and the case was remanded to the court a quo for new trial.
Without costs.