G.R. No.

47101 April 25, 1941

GODOFREDO BUCCAT, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

LUIDA MANGONON DE BUCCAT, defendant-appealed.

Mr. Feliciano Leviste, Mr. Tomas P. Panganiban and Ms. Sotera N. Megia on behalf of the

appellant.

Mrs. Luida Mangonon de Buccat in her own representation.

HORRILLENO, J .:

This matter has been raised to this Superiority by the Baguio Court of First Instance, since it only

raises a purely legal question.

On March 20, 1939, the plaintiff filed the case, in which the defendant did not appear, despite

having been duly summoned. Therefore, the plaintiff allowed to present his evidence, the lower

court ruled the matter in favor of the defendant. Hence this appeal.

The plaintiff requests the annulment of his marriage to the defendant Luida Mangonon de Buccat

on November 26, 1938, in the City of Baguio, on the grounds that, by consenting to said

marriage, he did so because the defendant had assured him that she was Virgin.

The following facts emerge from the decision of the lower court:
The plaintiff met the defendant in March 1938. After several interviews, both were engaged on

September 19 of the same year. On November 26 of the same year, the plaintiff married the

defendant in the Catholic Cathedral of the City of Baguio. After living together maritally for

eighty-nine days, the defendant gave birth to a nine-month-old boy on February 23, 1939. As a

result of this event, the plaintiff abandoned the defendant and did not return to marital life with

her .

We see no reason to overturn the appealed judgment. Indeed, the plaintiff and appellant's

allegation that he had not even suspected the serious condition of the defendant is implausible,

being, as has been proven, in a very advanced pregnant condition. Therefore, there is no room to

estimate the fraud that the appellant is talking about. His allegation that it is not rare to find

people with a developed abdomen, seems childish to merit our consideration, all the more so

since the plaintiff was a first-year law student.

Marriage is a most sacred institution: it is the foundation on which society rests. To cancel it,

clear and reliable evidence is needed. In this matter there is no such evidence.

Finding the sentence appealed adjusted to the law, it must be confirmed, as we hereby confirm it,

in all its parts, with the costs to the appellant. It is so ordered.

Avanceña, Pres., Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, MM., Are in agreement.