AUTHOR: Magsino, Patricia Marie C.
Note: Art. 86 is from old CC, refer to FC 45 and FC 46, specifically 46!!
FACTS: (chronological order)
1953 – Aurora and Fernando married, a month later Fernando filed an action for annulment of their marriage on the ground that his consent to the marriage was obtained through force and intimidation
The action was then dismissed, and the validity of the marriage was upheld. Aurora’s counterclaim was then granted.
While the amount for the counterclaim was being negotiated, Fernando admitted that several months prior to their wedding, he had a pre-marital relationship with his close relative
Aurora alleges that this non-divulgement of Fernando’s pre-marital relationship constituted in fraud to obtain her consent to marry
Aurora now prays for the annulment of their marriage on this ground (non-divulgement as fraud), and moral damages
ISSUE(S):
WON non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of marriage.
HELD:
NO. This is not considered fraud, and therefore a ground for annulment of marriage.
Appealed decision is upheld.
RATIO:
The FRAUD being discussed in this case does not include non-disclosure of a pre-marital relationship. NCC only admits to (1) misrepresentation as to identity, (2) non-disclosure of previous conviction of a crime, and (3) concealment by wife of the fact that at the time of marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband (NCC 86). It is clear that non-disclosure of a pre-marital relationship does not fall in any of those stated. Further, the last paragraph of Art. 86 states that ‘no other
58
misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune, or chastity shall constitute fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.’
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
Villanueva v. CA
G.R. No. 132955. October 27, 2006 TOPIC: Effect of force, intimidation and undue influence, FC 45 (4)
PONENTE: Ynares-Santiago, J.
AUTHOR: Ocampo, Miguel
FACTS:
Petitioner Orlando Villanueva (O.V.) and respondent Lilia Villanueva (L.V.) got married on April 13, 1988 in Puerto Princesa, Palawan.
On Nov. 17, 1992, Orlando filed for annulment of their marriage due to:
a. Threats of violence and duress forced him into marrying L.V., who was already pregnant but did not get her pregnant before their marriage. The threats alleged by O.V. were;
1. The harassing phone calls from L.V. and strangers;
2. The unwanted visits by 3 men at the premises of the U.E. after his classes thereat; and
3. The threatening presence of a certain Ka Celso, a supposed member of NPA whom O.V. claimed to have been hired by L.V. and who accompanied him in going to her home province of Palawan to marry her.
b. That he never cohabited with her even after their marriage; and c. That the child died during delivery on Aug. 28, 1988.
L.V. as defense states that:
a. O.V. freely and voluntarily married her;
b. O.V. stayed with her in Palawan for almost a month after their marriage;
c. O.V. wrote letters to her containing expressions of love for her after O.V. returned to Manila; and d. O.V. knew the progress of the pregnancy;
RTC ruled in favor of respondent L.V., which CA affirmed. But CA reduced the damages stated by the RTC.
ISSUE:
WON the annulment will prosper HELD: NO.
SC affirms the decision of CA that O.V. freely and voluntarily married L.V.:
a. It took 4 yrs. and 8 mos. For O.V. to file this case unexplained;
b. Found basis on L.V.’s allegations that O.V. only wants this annulment case to prosper to be acquitted of his pending bigamy case; and
c. There was 13 letters but he acknowledged the 7 letters and denied the other 6 but subsequently, he also denied the 7 alleging he was threatened and forced to admit it.
SC was not convinced by the alleged threats of L.V. to deprive him of his will to enter the marriage:
60
a. He was a security guard in a bank and it only follows that it is reasonable to assume that he knew the rudiments of self-defense or at least to keep himself out of harm’s way;
b. He never sought the assistance of security personnel in U.E. nor the police regarding the alleged threats; and c. Neither did he inform the judge who performed their marriage about his alleged predicament.
SC was also not convinced that there was fraud on the part of L.V. regarding the child:
a. O.V.’s counsel stated that O.V. had sex with L.V. in a hotel “with L.V. on top” on January 1988.
b. He also was not right in saying that the child of L.V. died in Aug. 29, 1989. Because in the Civil Registrar, it was recorded that the child died in Aug. 29, 1988.
Also, lack of cohabitation between them is not a ground for annulment (DOCTRINE).
Abanag vs. Mabute [AM P-11-2922, 2011]
TOPIC: Breach of promise to marry PONENTE: Brion, J.
AUTHOR: Villaseñor, Pamela NOTES: (if applicable)
FACTS: (chronological order)
Administrative case against Mabute, a court stenographer in MCTC in Samar filed by Abanag for disgraceful and immoral conduct.
They met in Singles For Christ, then fell in love. He professed his undying love for her.
When she became pregnant, he took her to the manghihilot to have the baby aborted. When she refused, Mabute turned cold and eventually left her.
Mabute denies the allegations. He said that a co-employee who resent him did this to harass him.
ISSUE(S): Does his action amount to gross and immoral conduct?
HELD: No.
RATIO:
We find it evident that the sexual relations between the complainant and the respondent were consensual. Mere sexual relations between two unmarried and consenting adults are not enough to warrant administrative sanction for illicit behavior. The Court has repeatedly held that voluntary intimacy between a man and a woman who are not married, where both are not under any impediment to marry and where no deceit exists, is neither a criminal nor an unprincipled act that would warrant disbarment or disciplinary action.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The Court defined immoral conduct as conduct that is willful, flagrant or shameless, and that shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
To justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or an act so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
62
Avenido vs. Avenido [GR No. 173540, 2014]
TOPIC: Nature of marriage in the Philippines PONENTE: Perez, J.
AUTHOR: Villaseñor, Pamela NOTES: (if applicable)
FACTS: (chronological order)
This case involves a contest between two women both claiming to have been validly married to the same man, Eustaquio Avenido, now deceased.
1942 – Tecla was married to Eustaquio in Talibon, Bohol by the parish priest. Records were destroyed due to WW2
1954 – Eustaquio left his family.
1979 – Eustaquio married Peregrina in St. Jude Parish in Davao City.
1989 – Eustaquio died.
Tecla presented evidence of marriage: 1) Testimonies of witness that marriage happened, 2) Documentary evidence of certificate of loss of marriage certificate from the Office of the Civil Registrar in Bohol, certification that files were destroyed during 1932 to early part of 1945 due to WW2, certificate of marriage given by the parish priest, birth certificates of their children.
CA ruled in favor of Tecla. Peregrina appeals.
ISSUE(S): WON the evidence presented during the trial proves the existence of the marriage of Tecla to Eustaquio.
HELD: YES