ANAYA vs.

PALAROAN Facts: y y

Held: y

y y

y y y y

plaintiff Aurora and defendant Fernando were married on 4 December 1953 defendant Fernando filed an action for annulment of the marriage on 7 January 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation judgment was rendered therein on 23 September 1959 dismissing the complaint of Fernando court granted Auroras counterclaim Fernando had divulged to Aurora that several months prior to their marriage he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his the Plaintiff herein from going thru the marriage that was solemnized between them constituted 'FRAUD', in obtaining her consent Defendant Fernando, in his answer, denied the allegation He set up the defenses of lack of cause of action and estoppels He counterclaimed for damages for the malicious filing of the suit Plaintiff Aurora filed a reply with answer to the counterclaim, wherein she alleged: o he paid court to her, and pretended to shower her with love and affection not because he really felt so but because she merely happened to be the first girl available to marry so he could evade marrying the close relative of his o he secretly intended from the very beginning not to perform the marital duties and obligations o defendant Fernando carried on a courtship with a third girl with whom, after gaining the latter's love cohabited and had several children during the whole range of nine years

No. Aurora's allegation of the fraud was legally insufficient to invalidate her marriage. The court a quo required plaintiff to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff Aurora submitted a memorandum in compliance therewith, but the court found it inadequate and thereby issued an order, dated 7 October 1966, for the dismissal of the complaint; it also denied reconsideration. 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 On the merits of this second fraud charge, it is enough to point out that any secret intention on the husband's part not to perform his marital duties must have been discovered by the wife soon after the marriage: hence her action for annulment based on that fraud should have been brought within four years after the marriage

Issue: y

whether or not the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of marriage