ANAYA V.

PALAROAN
GR. No. L-27930, November 26, 1970
Petitioner: Aurora Anaya
Respondent: Fernando Palaroan

should not be dismissed. She submitted a memorandum which was found to still
be inadequate. CFI dismissed the complaint, also denying her MR.
Issue: W/N non-disclosure of a pre-marital relationship is a ground for
annulment of marriage?

Case: Appeal from an order of dismissal, issued motu proprio by the Juvenile &
Domestic Relations Court, Manila, of a complaint for annulment of marriage
between Anaya and Palaroan.

Held: NO.

Facts: Anaya and Palaroan got married in 1953. In 1954, Palaroan filed an
action for annulment of their marriage on the ground that his consent was
obtained through force and intimidation. CFI Manila dismissed the complaint,
upholding the validity of the marriage, granting Anayas counterclaim. While the
decision on damages was being negotiated, Palaroan told Anaya of a pre-marital
relationship he had with one of his close relatives. According to Anaya, nondisclosure of such pre-marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining her consent to
marriage. She filed a counterclaim, praying for annulment of their marriages and
for moral damages. Palaroan denied all allegations of the pre-marital relationship
and fraud. He averred that Anaya had no cause of action and estoppel because
she prayed for the validity of the marriage in his action for annulment. He
counterclaimed with damages for the malicious filling of the suit. Anaya replied
to his answer that he only married her because she was the next available woman
to marry in order to prevent marrying his close relative whose immediate family
members were threatening to force him to marry said relative; that he secretly
never intended to perform his marital obligations and decided not to live with
her.

Ratio: Art. 45 (3) of the FC provides that a marriage may be annulled if consent
of either party was obtained through fraud. Art. 46 then confines the
circumstances that can constitute fraud as a ground for annulment. Fraud is the
only cause given special treatment. To stress further such intention of Congress,
the enumeration of specific frauds was followed by the interdiction: no other
misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune, or chastity shall
constitute fraud. Non-disclosure of a husbands pre-marital relationship with
another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute
a ground for annulment.
Petitioner also avers that Palaroan had no intention of complying with his marital
duties and covertly made up his mind not to live with her. This second issue
(pretended love and absence of intention to perform duties of consortium) is an
entirely new and additional cause of action. However, this was improperly
alleged in the reply. On its merits, it is enough to point out that any secret
intention on the husbands part not to perform his marital duties must have been
discovered by the wife soon after the marriage. Hence, this action for annulment
based on that fraud should have been filed within 4 years after celebration of the
marriage. The wedding was in 1953, but this action was only brought up in 1966
thus, pleading is barred.

CFI: After trial, Anayas contention of fraud was legally insufficient to

invalidate her marriage. The court required Anaya to prove that her complain