G.R. No.

L-15853 July 27, 1960

FERNANDO AQUINO, Petitioner, vs. CONCHITA DELIZO, Respondent.

FACTS:

-Petitioner Fernando filed a complaint for annulment on the ground of fraud because Respondent Conchita, at the date of her
marriage to Petitioner, concealed from Petitioner that fact that she was pregnant by another man, and about four months after
their marriage, Respondent gave birth to a child.

-At the trial, only the Petitioner testified and the only documentary evidence presented was the marriage contract between the
parties.

Trial Court- dismissed the complaint because there was no presentment of birth certificate to show that the child was born within
180 days after the marriage between the parties, and holding that concealment of pregnancy does not constitute such fraud as
would annul a marriage.

-Petitioner tried to present the certificates of birth and delivery of the child born of the defendant on which documents, according
to him, he had failed to secure earlier and produce before the trial court thru excusable negligence. Trial court likewise denied
the petition. (not essential)

CA: affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because it was not impossible for Petitioner and Respondent to have had sexual
intercourse during their engagement so that the child could be their own, and finding unbelievable Petitioner’s claim that he did
not notice or even suspect that Respondent was pregnant when he married her.

-Regarding the motion for reception of additional evidence, CA held that there has been excusable neglect to present child’s birth
certificate, and for that reason the court a quo erred in denying the motion for reception of additional evidence. (not essential)

- Petitioner filed a motion praying that the decision be reconsidered, or, if such reconsideration be denied, that the case be
remanded to the lower court for new trial. In support of the motion, plaintiff attached as annexes thereof the following
documents:

1. Affidavit of Cesar Aquino (Respondent’s brother-in-law and Petitioner’s brother, with whom Respondent was living
at the time Petitioner met, courted and married her, and with whom Respondent has begotten two more children,
aside from her first born, in common-law relationship) admitting that he is the father of Respondent’s first born,
Catherine Bess Aquino, and that he and Respondent hid her pregnancy from Petitioner at the time of their marriage.

2. Affidavit of Respondent Conchita admitting her pregnancy by Cesar Aquino, her brother-in-law and Petitioner’s own
brother, at the time of their marriage and her having hidden this fact from Petitioner before and up to the time of their
marriage;

3. Affidavit of Albert Powell stating that he knew Cesar Aquino and Respondent lived together as husband and wife
Petitioner’s marriage to Respondent;

4. Birth Certificate of Respondent’s first born, Catherine Bess Aquino showing her date of birth to be April 26, 1955;

5. Birth Certificate of Carolle Ann Aquino, the second child of Respondent with Cesar Aquino, her brother-in-law;

6. Birth Certificate of Chris Charibel Aquino, the third child of Cesar Aquino and Respondent; and

7. Pictures of Respondent showing her natural plumpness as early as 1952 to as late as November, 1954, the November,
1954 photo itself does not show Respondent’s pregnancy which must have been almost four months old at the time
the picture was taken.
CA: denied the motion stating that it "does not believe the veracity of the contents of the motion and its annexes"

ISSUE: W/N the concealment of pregnancy constitutes fraud and is sufficient basis for annulment of marriage

RULING: YES YES YOW. The concealment of pregnancy constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment of marriage.

RATIO:

-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 ground for annulment of marriage. (Art. 85, par. (4) in relation to Art. 86, par. (3).

ART. 85 (4) OF NCC -> ART. 45 (3) OF FC

ART. 86 (3) OF NCC -> ART 46 (2) OF FC

-And Petitioner could not have possibly suspected that Respondent was pregnant because alleged to be only more than four
months pregnant at the time of her marriage to plaintiff. And especially since she was "naturally plump" or fat as alleged by
Petitioner, Respondent’s pregnancy could not have been apparent or obvious.

LAWS/PROVISIONS:

NEW CIVIL CODE:

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

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

Article 86. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in number 4 of the preceding article:

(3) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her
husband.

FAMILY CODE:

Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the
facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife

Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article: 


(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her
husband
 G.R. No. 109975. February 9, 2001.*
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG, respondent.

FACTS:

-Erlinda Matias, 16 years old, married Avelino Parangan Dagdag, 20 years old. They begot two children, namely: Avelyn M. Dagdag and Eden M.
Dagdag.

-A week after the wedding, Avelino started leaving his family without explanation. He would disappear for months, suddenly reappear for a few
months, then disappear again.

-During the times when he was with his family, he indulged in drinking sprees with friends and would return home drunk. He would force his wife
to submit to sexual intercourse and if she refused, he would inflict physical injuries on her.

-On October 1993, he left his family again and that was the last they heard from him. Erlinda was forced to work in Olongapo City as a manicurist
to support herself and her children.

- Erlinda learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime and that he escaped from jail.

-Erlinda then filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code.

-RTC: rendered a decision declaring the marriage of Erlinda and Avelino void under Article 36 of the Family Code

-The investigating prosecutor filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment on the ground that the decision was prematurely rendered since he was given
until January 2, 1991 to manifest whether he was presenting controverting evidence.
-The OSG likewise filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision on the ground that the same is not in accordance with the evidence and the
law.
-RTC: denied Motion for Reconsideration

-The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals on the ground that lower court erred in declaring the marriage null and void because the
psychological incapacity of the nature contemplated by the law not having been proven to exist.

-CA: affirmed the decision of RTC, stating that

“Avelino Dagdag is psychologically incapacitated not only because he failed to perform the duties and obligations of a married person but because
he is emotionally immature and irresponsible, an alcoholic, and a criminal. Necessarily, the plaintiff is now endowed with the right to seek the
judicial declaration of nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. Defendant’s constant non-fulfillment of any of such obligations
is continously (sic) destroying the integrity or wholeness of his marriage with the plaintiff.

ISSUE: W/N the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly declared the marriage as null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code, on the
ground that the husband suffers from psychological incapacity as he is emotionally immature and irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic, and a fugitive
from justice.

RULING: NO. The marriage shall not be declared as null and void because Respondent Erlinda failed to comply with the guidelines in Republic vs
Molina case.

RATIO: Erlinda failed to comply with guideline No. 2 which requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically
identified and sufficiently proven by experts, since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her
husband. Further, the allegation that the husband is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently proven. In fact, the crime for which he was arrested
was not even alleged. The investigating prosecutor was likewise not given an opportunity to present controverting evidence since the trial court’s
decision was prematurely rendered.