[No. 5986.

March 18, 1941]

JOSE RUIZ, plaintiff and appellant,
vs. PELAGIA ATIENZA, defendant and appellee.

ENGZON, J.:

DOCTRINE: The provision of the Marriage Law (Sec. 30, Act No. 3613) referring to "force" or "violence" as ground of annulment of marriage,
does not seem to include mere intimidation, at least where it does not in legal effect amount to force or violence.

FACTS:
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Manila Court of First Instance denying plaintiff's demand for the annulment of his marriage with
defendant contracted on November 14, 1938, with all the outward legal formalities.
2. Previous to February, 1938, Jose Ruiz and Pelagia Atienza, both single, were sweethearts.
3. Loving perhaps too well, she allowed him, in a moment of weakness, to have his way, with the result that nine months later she became an
unmarried mother.
4. After the baby's birth, i. e., on November 14, 1938, Pelagia's father Jose Atienza, Atty. Villavicencio (her cousin-in-law), and three other
persons visited Jose Ruiz at the boarding house where he lived, in Oregon street.
5. They requested, and after some discussion, convinced him to marry Pelagia.
6. With his cousin Alfredo Asuncion, he went with Jose Atienza and companions to Tanduay street, where Pelagia was living;
7. from there the party, joined by Pelagia and others, went to the Aglipayan church at Maria Clara street, Manila, then proceeded to secure a
marriage license, and later returned to the same Aglipayan church where the marriage was celebrated in the evening.
8. Four days later, alleging that he had been forced into wedlock, Jose Ruiz brought this suit to secure its avoidance.
9. His counsel has 'dramatized the visit of Jose Atienza and companions, and the "plans" drawn to force Jose Ruiz into the marriage, Jose's
passive and downcast attitude, all in an effort to maintain the proposition that Jose Ruiz went with them that afternoon "convinced" by the
following "arguments":
a. the threats of the father supported by his "balisong";
b. the unveiled intimidation by Atty.Villavicencio that if he would not marry Pelagia Atienza, he would have difficulty when he would
take the bar examinations because, as he said, many have been rejected admission to the bar on the ground of immorality; and
c. the promise of Atty. Villavicencio that Ruiz would be physically "safe" if he would go with them.

ISSUE:
W/N Jose Ruiz was intimidated into marrying Pelagia Atienza?

HELD: No!
1. As to the first, it appears that in the course of the conversation during the visit, Ruiz made the statement that he could not marry Pelagia
because he was already a married man.
2. This so aroused Jose Atienza that he grabbed Ruiz' necktie, exclaiming: "So you mean to fool my daughter!"
3. Those present intervened quickly, and the dispute stopped.
4. The flare of anger is easily understandable.
5. But it is not sufficiently established that Jose Atienza displayed any "balisong", or made any threat against the life of Ruiz.
6. In fact, only a one-and-a-half-inch knife was found in his possession by the policeman whom the companions of Ruiz called upon seeing what
they believed to be the beginning of trouble.
7. As to the threat to obstruct his admission to the Bar, by filing charges against him for immorality, the authorities are unanimous that it is
not such a duress as to constitute a reason for annuling the marriage.
8. * * * 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; * * *.
9. As to the promise by Atty. Villavicencio, it is apparent that when defendant was invited to go with them and marry Pelagia, he had some
fears that he might be subjected to bodily harm in retaliation for the dishonor inflicted upon her family.
10. For this reason, he had to be assured by Villavicencio that he would be safe if he went with them.
11. From this statement, we cannot infer what appellant’s attorney would cleverly infer, i.e., that Ruiz would not be safe if he did not follow
them.
12. Appellant would make it appear that that afternoon Ruiz was practically kidnapped by Pelagia's relatives until after the marriage
ceremony.
a. That cannot be true.
b. He had many occasions to escape, as pointed out in appellee's brief.
c. He had companions in the house whom he could have asked for help.
d. There was even the policeman.
13. Now, considering that the law presumes strongly the validity of marriage once the formal ceremonies have been completed, we are led to
the conclusion that although plaintiff may not have looked upon the ceremony as the happy culmination of youthful romance, still the
evidence does not warrant a pronouncement that his consent to it was obtained through force or intimidation.
14. Indeed, we may advert to the provision of the Marriage Law which, referring to "force" or "violence", does not seem to include mere
intimidation, at least where it does not in legal effect amount to force or violence.
15. At any rate, it is unnecessary to pass on the effect of this legal distinction.
16. For even though appellant has presented his case in the best possible light, yet appellee's attorney has successfully met the issues, upholding
the judge's conclusion of fact that neither violence nor duress attended the marriage celebration.

Judgment affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered