Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Aurora A. Anaya vs Fernando O. Palaroan Main Characters: Plaintiff-appellant: Aurora A. Anaya Defendant-appellee: Fernando O.

Palaroan Petition: Appeal from an order of dismissal, issued motu proprio by the Juvenile & Justice Domestic Relations Court, Manila, of a complaint for annulment of marriage, docketed E-00431, entitled "Aurora A. Anaya vs Fernado O. Palaroan" The Story (Content of the complaint in the Civil Case No. E-00431) 1. They got married on December 4, 1953. 2. January 7, 1954 defendant Fernando filed an action for annulment. ground: that his consent was obtained through force & intimidation 3. September 23, 1959 the CFI of Manila dismissed Fernando's complaint, upholding the validity & granting Aurora's counterclaim. 4. In paragraph 4 of the complaint, it was stated that 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 pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. 5. What happened in paragraph 4 was used by Aurora as a ground for the annulment and moral damages that she was praying for. Fernando's Part: 1.In his answer, denied the allegation in paragraph 4 & denied having had premarital relationship with a close-relative 2. Averred that under no circumstance would he live with Aurora, as he had escaped from her & from her relatives the day following their marriage 3. denied having committed any fraud against her 4. He set up the defenses of lack of cause of action & estoppel for her having prayed in Civil CaseNo. 21589 for the validity of the marriage & her having enjoyed the support that had been granted her. (refer to the previous part: The Story no.3) (I think the Civil Case No 21589 refers to the annulment case first filed by Fernando) 5. He counterclaimed for damages for the malicious filing of the suit. He did not pray for the dismissal of the complaint but for its dismissal "with respect to the alleged moral damages" Aurora's Contentions: 1.that prior to their marriage, that Fernando just paid court to her & pretended to shower her with love and affection because she happened to be the 1st girl available to marry. He did this to evade marrying the close relative of his whom immediate family were threatening him to force him to marry her (the close relative) 2.that since he contracted the marriage for the reason intimated by him, & not because he loved her, he secretly intended from the very beginning not to perform the marital duties & obligations and furthermore, made up his mind not to live with

her. 3. that the foregoing clandestine intentions intimated by him were prematurely concretized for him, when in order to placate & appease the immediate members of the family of the first girl (close relative) & to convince them of his intention not to live with plaintiff, carried on a courtship with a 3rd girl with whom, after gaining the latter's love cohabited and had several children during the whole range on 9 years that Civil Case No. 21589, had been litigated between them (parties) 6. The court realized that Aurora's allegation of the fraud was insufficient to invalidate her marriage. Aurora was then asked to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed. She submitted a memorandum in compliance with this but still was insufficient. Thereby, October 7, 1966 The court dismissed the complaint and denied reconsideration. ISSUE: WON the 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. The SC affirmed the lower court that it is not. 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 providing that "no other misrepresentation of deceit as to chastity" shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. Two provisions that are involved in the case: Article 85 par 6 and Article 86 of the Civil Code. Article 85. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage. xxx xxx xxx (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. This fraud, as vice of consent, is limited exclusively by law to those kinds or species of fraud enumerated in Article 86, as follows 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 the contracting parties. (2) Non-disclosure of the previous conviction of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude, and the penalty imposed was imprisonment for 2 years or more; (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.

No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune, or CHASTITY shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage, *It is the intention of the Congress to confine the circumstances that can constitute fraud as a ground for annulment. If they did not intend it to be such, they should have stopped at Article 85, for anyway, fraud in general is already mentioned therein. The enactment of Article 86 clearly shows the intention to exclude all other frauds or deceits. *Aurora emphasized that the "non divulgement" of the premarital relationship is NOT HER ONLY allegation BUT ALSO that Fernando paid court to her w/o any intention of complying with his marital duties & obligations and covertly made up his mind not to love with her. -Regarding this matter, the SC held that this should have been discovered by her soon after the marriage; hence her action for annulment based on that fraud should have been brought within 4 years after the marriage. Since their wedding was celebrated in December 1953 and this ground was only pleaded in 1966; it must be declared already barred.