Case Digest (Voidable Marriages)

Anaya vs Paraloan

Facts:

Aurora and Fernando were married on December 04, 1953. Fernando filed an action for
annulment of the marriage on January 7, 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained
through force and intimidation. The RTC dismissed the complaint of Fernando and upheld the
validity of the marriage and granted Aurora’s counterclaim. While the amount of the
counterclaim was being negotiated “to settle the judgment,” Fernando had divulged to Aurora
that several months prior to their marriage he had a pre-marital relationship with a close relative
of his. According to her, the non-divulgement to her of such pre-marital secret constituted fraud
in obtaining her consent. She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando on such
ground and asked for moral damages.

Issue:

Is non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman a
ground for annulment of marriage?

Held:

No. Fraud is a vice of consent in marriage, which may be a cause for its annulment, comes
under Article 85, No. 4, of the Civil Code, which provides:

Article 85. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of
the marriage.

xxx

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with
full knowledge of the facts constituting fraud, freely cohabitation with the other as her husband
or his wife, as the case may be;

This fraud, as vice of consent, is limited exclusively by law to those kinds or species of fraud
enumerated in Article 86:

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;

No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute

Non-disclosure of a husband’s pre-marital relationship with another woman 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. While a woman may
detest such non-disclosure of pre-marital lewdness or feel having been thereby cheated into
giving her consent to the marriage, nevertheless the law does not assuage her grief after her
consent was solemnly given, for upon marriage she entered into an institution in which society,
and not herself alone, is interested. The lawmaker’s intent being plain, the Court’s duty is to give
effect to the same, whether it agrees with the rule or not. Hence, the case at bar does not
constitute fraud and therefore would not warrant an annulment of marriage.

Aquino vs. Delizo

Facts:

On December 27, 1954, Fernando Aquino (Aquino) and Conchita Delizo (Delizo) got married.
Delizo allegedly concealed from Aquino that she was pregnant with another man’s child. About
four (4) months after their marriage, Delizo gave birth to a child. She claimed that the child was
Aquino’s before they got married.

On September 6, 1955, Aquino filed a complaint on the ground of fraud of Delizo.

The RTC dismissed the complaint, which the CA affirmed.

The basis of the RTC and CA’s rulings are as follows:

RTC:

●​ No birth certificate was presented to show the child was born within 180 days after the
marriage between the parties.
●​ Trial court held that concealment of pregnancy, as alleged by Aquino, does not constitute
fraud which can annul a marriage.
●​ Aquino filed for a “petition to reopen for reception of additional evidence” to present the
birth certificate of the child, saying he failed to secure them earlier thru excusable
negligence, but the petition was denied.

CA:
 ●​ There has been excusable neglect in Aquino’s inability to present birth certificate; trial
court erred in denying the motion for reception for additional evidence
●​ Found Aquino’s claim unbelievable that he did not notice or even suspect Delizo was
pregnant when he married her - It was not impossible for the two of them to have sexual
intercourse during their engagement, so it is possible the child could be his

On March 17, 1959, Aquino filed a motion praying the decision be reconsidered, or that the case
be remanded to the lower court for a new trial. He submitted additional evidence for that
purpose, viz: Affidavit of Cesar Aquino - his brother, Affidavit of Conchita Delizo, and Affidavit
Albert Powell.

On August 06, 1959, the CA denied the motion.

Issue:

Whether the respondent’s concealment of her pregnancy by another man can be a ground for
annulment.

Held:

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. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the RTC for a new trial.

Republic vs. Villacorta

Facts:

Melvin and Janufi met in March of 1996 while they were both studying at Southwestern
University, Cebu City. They became sweethearts but ended their relationship in 2000.
Thereafter, Melvin heard that Janufi began dating someone who was working near the
establishment where she was then employed.

In April of 2001, Melvin learned that Janufi was already one month pregnant. He was surprised
and doubtful because they had sexual intercourse only in March of 2001. However, Janufi
assured him that he was the only person she had sexual intercourse with.

On December 1, 2001, Janufi gave birth to Mejan Dia. After almost three years on August 14,
2004, Melvin and Janufi got married.

The couple would often quarrel about the paternity of Mejan Dia. This prompted Melvin to take a
DNA test, which revealed that there was 0.0% probability that Melvin was the father of Mejan
Dia.
Issue:

Whether the concealment of Janufi about the truth of her pregnancy is a ground for annulment
even if the child was already three (3) years old at the time of their marriage?

Held:

No. Article 45(2) in relation to Article 46(2), Article 46(2) provides that “concealment by the wife
of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband”
shall constitute fraud.

In the instant case, the facts readily reveal that Mejan Dia was already almost three (3) years
old when Melvin and Janufi got married on August 4, 2004. As Janufi was not pregnant at the
time of the marriage, any purported fraud she may have committed to induce Melvin to marry
her cannot be considered the fraudulent concealment contemplated under Article 46(2).

Jimenez vs. Republic

Facts:

Joel Jimenez filed a complaint praying for a decree annulling his marriage with Remedios
Canizares. He claimed that the orifice (opening) of her genitals was too small to allow the
penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation. He also claimed that the condition of her
genitals existed at the time of marriage and continues to exist. The wife was summoned and
served with a copy of the complaint but she did not file an answer. The court entered an order
requiring the defendant to submit to a physical examination by a competent lady physician to
determine her physical capacity for copulation (sexual intercourse). However, Remedios did not
submit herself to the examination and the court entered a decree annulling the marriage. The
City Attorney filed a Motion for Reconsideration, among the grounds that the defendant’s
impotency has not been satisfactorily established as required by law; that she had not been
physically examined because she refused to be examined.

Issue:

Whether or not the marriage may be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the
husband who claimed and testified that his wife is impotent.

Held:

No. The Court ruled that the lone testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable
of sexual intercourse is insufficient to annul their marriage. Accordingly, the Court remanded the
case to the lower court for further proceedings.