Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Orlando Villanueva vs Court of Appeals and Lilia Canalita-Villanueva GR No.

132955 October 27, 2006 Article 45 In April 1988, Orly married Lilia before a trial court judge. In November 1992, Orly filed to annul the marriage. He claimed that threats of violence and duress forced him to marry Lilia and that Lilia even hired the service of a member of the NPA to threaten him. Orly also said he was defrauded by Lilia by claiming that she was pregnant hence he married her but he now raises that he never impregnated Lilia prior to the marriage. Lilia on the other hand denied Orlys allegations and that Orly freely cohabited with her after the marriage. ISSUE: Whether or not there is duress and fraud present in the case at bar. HELD: Orlys allegation of fraud and intimidation is untenable. It is obvious that Orly is only seeking to annul his marriage with Lilia so as to have the pending bigamy case against him to be dismissed. Orly was not able to prove that there was a well grounded reason for fear to be created in his mind by the alleged intimidation being done against him. Fraud cannot be raised as a ground as well. His allegation that he never had an erection during their sexual intercourse is flimsy at best, and an outright lie at worst. The complaint is bereft of any reference to his inability to copulate with the appellee. Instead of providing proofs that he was tricked into marrying his wife, appellant resorted to undermining the credibility of the latter

Anaya vs Palaroan GR No. L-27930 November 26, 1970 FACTS: Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married in 1953. Palaroan filed an action for annulment of the marriage in 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation. The complaint was dismissed and Auroras counterclaim granted. While the amount of counterclaim was being negotiated, Fernando divulged to her that several months prior to their marriage, he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. According to her, the non-divulgement to her of such pre-marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining her consent. She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando on such ground. ISSUE: Whether or not the concealment to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of marriage. HELD: The concealment of a husbands pre-marital relationship with another woman was not one of those enumerated that would constitute fraud as ground for annulment and it is further excluded by the last paragraph providing that no other misrepresentation or deceit as to.. chastity shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. Hence, the case at bar does not constitute fraud and therefore would not warrant an annulment of marriage.

Buccat vs Buccat 72 P 19 April 25, 1941 Facts: Godofredo Buccat and Luida Mangonon de Buccat met in March 1938, became engaged in September, and got married in November. On Feb 23, 1939 (89 days after getting married) Luida, who was 9 months pregnant, gave birth to a son. After knowing this, Godofredo left Luida and never returned to married life with her. On March 23, 1939, he filed for an annulment of their marriage on the grounds that when he agreed to married Luida, she assured him that she was a virgin. The Lower court decided in favor of Luida. Issue: WON the annulment for Godofredo Buccats marriage be granted on the grounds that Luida concealed her pregnancy before the marriage Held: Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a marriage, a sacred institution in which the State is interested and where society rests. In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was concealment of pregnancy constituting fraud as a ground for annulment. It was unlikely that Godofredo, a first-year law student, did not suspect anything about Luidas condition considering that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy (highly developed physical manifestation, ie. enlarged stomach ) when they got married.

Macarrubo vs Macarrubo AC No. 6148 February 27, 2004 In 1982, Edmundo Macarrubo married Helen Esparza. However in 1991, Macarrubo married Florence Teves while his marriage with Esparza was subsisting. In June 2000, Teves filed a complaint for disbarment against Macarrubo. Teves alleged that Macarrubo made her believe that his marriage with Esparza was void; that Macarubbo lived with her as her husband but later on left her and then Macarrubo subsequently married another woman named Josephine Constantino whom he subsequently abandoned. Teves presented as evidence documents proving Macarubbos marriages as well as photos of him and his wife as a family. ISSUE: Whether or not a second marriage entered into by a lawyer while his first one is subsisting shall be a ground for disciplinary action if such second marriage is subsequently declared void. HELD: Macarubbo is disbarred. Even though his second marriage is declared void, it is still undeniable that he contracted it while his first one is subsisting. Further, since the second marriage is void, he is then liable for concubinage for living with another woman while his first marriage is subsisting. The Supreme Court cannot give credit to his defense that both second and third marriages are shot gun marriages. He is a lawyer and is unlikely to be coerced. One incident of a shotgun marriage is believable, but two such in succession would tax ones credulity. Macarrubos actions show a blatant disregard to the institution of marriage and family.

People vs Santiago
G.R. No. L-27972 October 31, 1927

FACTS: On November 23, 1926, herein appellant Felipe Santiago raped Felicita Masilang, his wifes niece, in an uninhabited place across a river in Gapan, Nueva Ecija. After the deed, he took her to the house of his brother, Agaton Satiago, who in turn fetched a protestant minister who there and then officiated the ceremony of their marriage. After having given money by Felipe, Felicita proceeded home to her father and told what had just occurred. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage executed by the protestant minister is of legal effect. HELD: The marriage ceremony was a mere ruse by which the appellant hoped to escape from the criminal consequence of his act. It shows that he had no bona fide intention of making her his wife and the ceremony cannot be considered binding on her because of duress. The marriage was therefore void for lack of essential consent, and it supplies no impediment to the prosecution of the wrongdoer.

Reyes vs Zaballero GR No. 100935 June 30, 1997 FACTS: During the Japanese occupation the creditor of a prewar debt reluctantly received Japanese military notes tendered in full payment of his credit. Appellant testified that after he had declined to receive payment, the debtors told him that he ought to know that the Japanese disliked non-acceptance of their money. After liberation he sued for recovery of the debt, contending that his acceptance of the money was invalidated by duress. Issue: WON there is sufficient evidence to prove force or intimidation on the part of the respondents Held: According to the Civil Code, there is duress or intimidation when one of the concentrating parties is inspired by a rational and well-grounded fear of suffering an imminent and serious injury to his person or property, or to the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants. We have to admit that the creditor accepted the money grudgingly or reluctantly. But this court has already ruled that mere reluctance does not detract from the voluntariness of ones act. There must be a distinction to be made between a case where a person gives his consent reluctantly and even against his good sense and judgment, and where he, in reality, gives no consent at all, as where he executes a contract or performs an act against his will under a pressure which he cannot resist.

Alcazar vs Alcazar G.R. No. 174451 October 13, 2009 Facts: Right after their wedding, respondent left for Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where he worked as an upholsterer in a furniture shop. While working in Riyadh, respondent did not communicate with petitioner by phone or by letter. Petitioner asserted that from the time respondent arrived in the Philippines, he never contacted her. Thus, petitioner concluded that respondent was physically incapable of consummating his marriage with her, providing sufficient cause for annulment of their marriage Issue: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT is physically incapable of consummating his marriage Ruling: No evidence was presented in the case at bar to establish that respondent was in any way physically incapable to consummate his marriage with petitioner. Petitioner even admitted during her cross-examination that she and respondent had sexual intercourse after their wedding and before respondent left for abroad. There obviously being no physical incapacity on respondents part, then, there is no ground for annulling petitioners marriage to respondent. Petitioners Complaint was, therefore, rightfully dismissed.

Jimenez vs. Canizares L-12790, August 31, 1960 FACTS: Joel Jimenez filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with Remedios Canizares on the ground that the orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ for copulation. It has existed since the time of the marriage which led him to leave the conjugal home two nights and one day after the marriage. The court summoned the wife but the latter did not file any answer. The wife was ordered to submit herself to physical examination and to file a medical certificate within 10 days. She was given another 5 days to comply or else it will be deemed lack of interest on her part and therefore rendering judgment in favor of the petitioner. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage can be annulled with only the testimony of the husband. HELD: The wife who was claimed to be impotent by her husband did not avail of the opportunity to defend herself and as such, claim cannot be convincingly be concluded. It is a well-known fact that women in this country are shy and bashful and would not readily and unhesitatingly submit to a physical examination unless compelled by competent authority. Such physical examination in this case is not self-incriminating. She is not charged with any offense and likewise is not compelled to be a witness against herself. Impotence being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The case was remanded to trial court.

Pacete vs. Cariaga 231 SCRA 321

Facts: Concepcion Alanis filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of the marriage between her husband Enrico Pacete and Clarita de la Concepcion, as well as for legal separation (between Alanis and Pacete), accounting and separation of property. In her complaint, she averred that she was married to Pacete before he subsequently contracted a second marriage with Clarita de la Concepcion in North Cotabato; that she learned of such marriage only on 1979. During her marriage to Pacete, the latter acquired vast property and that he fraudulently placed the several pieces of property either in his name and Clarita or in the names of his children with Clarita. Issue: Whether or not RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners' motion for extension of time to file their answer on the decree of legal separation Ruling: The special prescriptions on actions that can put the integrity of marriage to possible jeopardy are impelled by no less than the State's interest in the marriage relation and its avowed intention not to leave the matter within the exclusive domain and the vagaries of the parties to alone dictate. It is clear that the petitioner did, in fact, specifically pray for legal separation. 11 That other remedies, whether principal or incidental, have likewise been sought in the same action cannot dispense, nor excuse compliance, with any of the statutory requirements.