VILLANUEVA V.
CA worked as a security guard in a bank and as such, he should at least know basic
GR. No. 132955, October 27, 2006
Effect of force, intimidation, and undue influence
Petitioner: Orlando Villanueva
Respondent: CA, Lilia Canalita-Villanueva
Case: Petition for review of CA’s decision, affirming with modification the
Decision of RTC Valenzuela in dismissing petitioner’s petition for the annulment
of his marriage to Lilia, and ordering him to pay moral and exemplary damages.
Facts: Orlando Villanueva and Lilia Canalita-Villanueva got marred in 1988 in
Palawan. In 1992, Villanueva filed a petition for annulment of his marriage on
the ground of threats of violence and duress forcing him to marry Lilia who was
already pregnant at the time. He alleged that he did not get her pregnant and that
he never cohabited with her after the marriage. The child had died during
delivery. In her answer, Lilia prayed for the dismissal of the petition, arguing that
Villanueva freely and voluntarily married her; that petitioner stayed with her in
Palawan for almost a month after their marriage; and that petitioner wrote letters
to her after returning to Manila.
RTC: trial court dismissed Fernando’s complaint, ordering him to pay Lilia
moral and exemplary damages.
CA: Fernando appealed to the CA which affirmed the RTC’s ruling, but reduced
the award of moral and exemplary damages.
He then raised to SC.
Issue: W/N their marriage can be dissolved on the ground of vitiated consent?
Held: NO.
Ratio: Fernando claims that he did not freely consent to the marriage because
was harassed and forced to marry her: harassing phone calls, unwelcome visits
from three men after his classes at UE, and threatening presence of a certain Ka
Celso who is allegedly a member of the NPA. The SC is not convinced that
Fernando’s apprehension of danger to his person is so overwhelming that it had
deprived him of the will to enter voluntarily to a contract of marriage. He
self-defense. Also, he did not inform the judge about his predicament prior to
solemnizing their marriage.
He also alleged fraud because he was made to believe that Lilia was pregnant
with his child when they were married. His excuse is that he could not have
impregnated her because he was not physically prepared during their tryst, but
this was negated by the narration of Fernando’s counsel before the RTC—that
the sexual act had been consummated in 1988 before the marriage.
Instead of presenting his own strong evidence, Fernando resorted to undermining
the credibility of Lilia by citing her errors in recalling the date of birth of their
child—that she was off by a year.
He also wrote 13 letters of love to Lilia of which he acknowledge 7, but later
retracted and denied having voluntarily written them. If he was really under
duress, how could he have denied his involvement in the other 6 letters?
He cannot claim to annul his marriage because he and Lilia no longer cohabited
after the marriage. Lack of cohabitation is, per se, not a ground to annul a
marriage. Failure to cohabit becomes relevant only if it arises as a result of the
perpetration of any of the grounds for annulling the marriage. He failed to justify
his failure to cohabit with Lilia, thus the validity of his marriage should be
upheld.
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at
the time of the marriage:
xxx
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue
influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter
freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;