Article 45-46
her.
GOITIA vs CAMPOS-RUEDA
35 PHIL 252
FACTS:
Eloisa Goitia and Jose Campos Rueda were legally married in Manila on January 7, 1915.
They established their residence and lived together for a month.
The husband demanded from his wife to perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his
genital organs which the wife refused to perform. The husband continually demanded
such lewd acts from his wife. The constant refusal of the wife induced the husband to
inflict physical injuries. This forced Eloisa to leave the conjugal home and take refuge in
the home of her parents.
Eloisa demanded financial support from Jose. The Court held that the defendant cannot
be compelled to support the wife except in his own house, unless it is by virtue of a
judicial decree granting her a divorce or separation.
ISSUE:
Would the husband be compelled to provide financial support for his wife who refuses
to live with him?
HELD:
The act of marriage creates an obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife
as a natural and legal duty. This obligation is not terminated by his own wrongful acts in
driving his wife to seek protection.
Separation and divorce arguments to create financial obligation is weak because
separate maintenance is a specific duty mandated by the State and is not payable either
as damages or as penalty.
Article 45-46
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 132955 October 27, 2006
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
This petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the January 26, 1998
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51832, affirming with modification
the Decision dated January 12, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro
Manila, and Branch 172 in Civil Case No. 3997-V-92 (a) dismissing petitioner’s petition
for the annulment of his marriage to private respondent and (b) ordering him to pay
moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs. Also assailed is the March 5,
1998 Resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
FACTS:
In April 1988, Orlando Villanueva married Lilia Canalita- Villanueva before a trial
court judge in Puerto Princesa. In November 1992, Orlando filed before the trial court a
petition for annulment of his marriage. He claimed that threats of violence and duress
forced him to marry Lilia who was then pregnant. Orlando anchored his prayer for the
annulment of his marriage on the ground that he did not freely consent to be married
to Lilia. He cited several incidents that created on his mind a reasonable and
well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave danger to his life and safety, to wit: the
harassing phone calls from Lilia and strangers as well as the unwanted visits by three
men at the premises of the University of the East after his classes thereat, and the
threatening presence of a certain Ka Celso, a supposed member of the New People’s
Army whom appellant claimed to have been hired by Lilia and who accompanied him in
going to her home province of Palawan to marry her. On the other hand Lilia denied
Orlando’s allegations and she said that Orlando freely cohabited with her after the
marriage and she showed 14 letters that shows Orlando’s affection and care towards
ISSUE:
Whether the subject marriage may be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent
under Article 45 of the Family Code; and
ANSWER:
No. The court ruled that vitiation of consent is not attendant in this case. Therefore,
the petition for annulment, which is anchored to his allegation that he did not freely
give his consent, should be dismissed.
REASONING:
The SC ruled that Orlando’s allegation of fraud and intimidation is untenable. On its face,
it is obvious that Orlando is only seeking to annul his marriage with Lilia so as to have
the pending appealed bigamy case [filed against him by Lilia] to be dismissed.
On the merits of the case, Orlando’s allegation of fear was not concretely established.
The Court is not convinced that appellant’s apprehension of danger to his person is so
overwhelming as to deprive him of the will to enter voluntarily to a contract of marriage.
It is not disputed that at the time he was allegedly being harassed, appellant worked as
a security guard in a bank. Given his employment at that time, it is reasonable to
assume that appellant knew the rudiments of self-defense, or, at the very least, the
proper way to keep himself out of harm’s way. For sure, it is even doubtful if threats
were indeed made to bear upon appellant, what with the fact that he never sought the
assistance of the security personnel of his school nor the police regarding the activities
of those who were threatening him. And neither did he inform the judge about his
predicament prior to solemnizing their marriage. Fraud cannot be raised as a ground as
well. His allegation that he never had an erection during their sexual intercourse is
incredible and is an outright lie. His counsel also conceded before the lower court that
his client had a sexual relationship with Lilia.
HOLDING:
Thus, dismissing petitioner’s petition for the annulment of his marriage with private
respondent, is AFFIRMED. However, the award of moral and exemplary damages is
DELETED for lack of basis.
Article 45-46
Anaya vs. Palaroan
36 SCRA 97
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 upheld the validity
of the marriage and granting Aurora’s counterclaim. 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 husband’s 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.
Article 45-46
Aquino v. Delizo
G.R. No. L-15853, 27 July 1960
FACTS:
The trial court dismissed the complaint for Aquino did not show any birth certificate to
show the child was born within 180 days after the marriage between the parties. Later
on Aquino presented evidence to show proof of the child’s birth but still his petition
was denied. The CA denied Aquino’s appeal on the theory that it was not impossible for
the parties to have sex during their engagement so that the child could be their own
and finding it absurd for Aquino not to notice or suspect that Delizo was pregnant when
he married her. In a motion for reconsideration filed by Aquino, Delizo and her counsel
did not file an answer thus the motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of Aquino’s complaint is correct.
RULING:
No. The dismissal is not correct. Under the new Civil Code, 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.
Concealment of the wife the fact that at the time of the marriage she was pregnant by a
man other than his husband constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment of
marriage.
Here the defendant wife was alleged to be only more than four months pregnant at the
time of her marriage to plaintiff. At that stage, we are not prepared to say that her
pregnancy was readily apparent, especially since she was “naturally plump” or fat as
alleged by plaintiff.
According to medical authorities, even on the 5th month of pregnancy, the enlargement
of a woman’s abdomen is still below the umbilicus, that is to say, the enlargement is
limited to the lower part of the abdomen so that it is hardly noticeable and may, if
noticed, be attributed only to fat formation on the lower part of the abdomen. It is only
on the 6th month of pregnancy that the enlargement of the woman’s abdomen reaches
a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and
apparent.
Article 45-46
Almelor v. Regional Trial Court
G.R. No. 179620, 26 August 2008
FACTS:
Manuel married Leonida in 1989. They are both medical practitioners. They begot 3
children. 11 years later, Leonida sought to annul her marriage with Manuel claiming
that Manuel is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.
Leonida testified that Manuel is a harsh disciplinarian and that his policy towards their
children is often unconventional and was the cause of their frequent fight. Manuel has
an unreasonable way of imposing discipline towards their children but is remarkably so
gentle towards his mom. He is more affectionate towards his mom and this is a factor
which is unreasonable for Leonida. Further, Leonida also testified that Manuel is a
homosexual as evidenced by his unusual closeness to his male companions and that he
concealed his homosexuality from Leonida prior to their marriage. She once caught
Manuel talking to a man affectionately over the phone and she confirmed all her fear
when she saw Manuel kiss a man. The RTC ruled that their marriage is null and void not
because of PI but rather due to fraud by reason of Manuel’s concealment of his
homosexuality (Art 45 of the FC). The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage between the two can be declared as null and void due to
fraud by reason of Manuel’s concealment of his homosexuality.
RULING:
No. It is found out that there was no concealment of homosexuality done by Manuel.
To nullify an existing marriage, there are requisites which are provided by the Family
Code. As expressly stated in Art. 45 part 3 of the Family Code, “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”. It
was not proven that Manuel concealed his homosexuality which would eventually lead
to fraud.
The SC emphasized that homosexuality per se is not a ground to nullify a marriage. It is
the concealment of homosexuality that would. In the case at bar however, it is not
proven that Manuel is a homosexual. The lower court should not have taken the
public’s perception against Manuel’s sexuality. His peculiarities must not be ruled by the
lower court as an indication of his homosexuality for those are not conclusive and are
not sufficient enough to prove so. Even granting that Manuel is indeed a homosexual,
there was nothing in the complaint or anywhere in the case was it alleged and proven
that Manuel hid such sexuality from Leonida and that Leonida’s consent had been
vitiated by such.
Article 45-46
ALCAZAR VS. ALCAZAR
GR No. 174451 Oct. 13, 2009
FACTS:
Petitioner Veronica Alcazar alleged in her Complaint for the annulment of her
marriage that she was married to respondent Rey Alcazar in 2000. When they went
back to Manila after the wedding the respondent did not live with petitioner at the
latter’s abode. In October 2000, respondent left for Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to
work. The couple did not communicate the whole time he was abroad despite
numerous attempts by petitioner to call him. She even had to find out her husband was
coming home to the Philippines from a co-teacher about a year and a half after
respondent left for Riyadh. Petitioner further averred in her Complaint that when
respondent arrived in the Philippines, the latter did not go home to petitioner in Manila;
instead, respondent proceeded to his parents’ house in Occidental Mindoro. She
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 pursuant to paragraph 5, Article 45 of the Family Code of
the Philippines (Family Code). There was also no more possibility of reconciliation
between petitioner and respondent. RTC of Malolos City dismissed the Complaint, a
decision later affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, as defined by the law and jurisprudence, respondent is
psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.
HELD:
No, the Court scrutinized the totality of evidence presented by petitioner and
found that the same was not enough to sustain a finding that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s evidence, particularly her and her mother’s
testimonies, merely established the facts in the complaint. These testimonies though
do not give us much insight into respondent’s psychological state.
Dr. Tayag’s psychological report concluding that respondent was suffering
from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, traceable to the latter’s experiences during his
childhood, did not help petitioner’s cause. It must be noted that Tayag was not able to
personally examine respondent. Tayag, in evaluating respondent’s psychological state,
had to rely on information provided by petitioner, who was hardly impartial. The report
is totally bereft of the basis for the said conclusion and failed to explain how such a
personality disorder made respondent psychologically incapacitated to perform his
obligations as a husband. The Court emphasized that the burden falls upon petitioner, HELD:
not just to prove that respondent suffers from a psychological disorder, but also that
The marriage of Matilde and Faustino was evidenced by a valid Marriage License and
such psychological disorder renders him “truly incognitive of the basic marital
Marriage Certificate both of which were signed by the parties and properly recorded at
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the
the Office of the Civil Registrar. Being official and public documents, their validity can be
marriage.” Psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” a “refusal,” or
successfully assailed only by strong, clear, and convincing oral testimony.
a “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations.

It remains settled that the State has a high stake in the preservation of marriage
rooted in its recognition of the sanctity of married life and its mission to protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. Presumption is always in
favor of the validity of marriage. In the case at bar, petitioner failed to persuade us that
respondent’s failure to communicate with petitioner since leaving for Saudi Arabia to
work, and to live with petitioner after returning to the country, are grave psychological
maladies that are keeping him from knowing and/or complying with the essential
obligations of marriage.
Faustino’s meticulous signature cannot be signed by one who is not of sound mind and
of fair physical condition. He may have been sick at that time, but not to such a degree
as to render him unconscious of what he was doing.
Impotency is the physical inability to have sexual intercourse. The presumption is in
favor of potency. The fact that the deceased was able to produce the specimen as what
was instructed by his doctor shows that he was potent. The necessary conclusion is that
the child Faustino Neri, Jr., is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate son of the
deceased Faustino Neri with Matilde Menciano in lawful wedlock.

The trial court, after a careful and exhaustive review of the evidence, correctly reached
the conclusion that allegation of illegally disposing money and jewelry has not been
substantiated.

Article 45-46

MENCIANO vs. SAN JOSE

89 Phil 63

FACTS:

Matilde Menciano filed a motion for declaration of heirs, alleging that she is the widow
of the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose, to whom she was married on September 28,
1944. Before the marriage they lived together as husband and wife, there having been
no impediment to their marriage. As a result of their cohabitation the child Carlo Magno
Neri was born, baptized and was legitimized by the subsequent matrimony of his
parents. The second child Faustino Neri, Jr., was born on April 24, 1945 is a
legitimate child.

Paz Neri San Jose, then executrix of the estate of the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose,
and Rodolfo Pelaez, designated universal heir in the will of the deceased filed a motion
to question the declaration of heirs.

They alleged that marriage between said deceased and Matilde Menciano was in
violation of the legal provisions and requisites, because he was deprived of free will due
to his age and sickness. Accordingly, Matilde Menciano took advantage of his condition,
by intrigue, deceit and threat of abandoning him, forced Neri to marry her. The
deceased was impotent and congenitally sterile, the same as his brothers and sister
Conchita, who had no children therefore it would have been impossible for him to have
fathered the children

Defendants also filed a counterclaim for the sum of P286, 000 in cash, and for jewels
and certain properties, which, as alleged, were retained and illegally disposed of by
Matilde Menciano.

ISSUE:

Was the marriage between the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde Menciano
valid?

Are, the children Faustino Neri, Jr. and Carlo Magno Neri the legitimate children of the
deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde Menciano?

Did Matilde Menciano have illegally disposed of the cash, jewels, and certain properties
above mentioned?