GR No.

47101 April 25, 1941
GODOFREDO BUCCAT v. LUIDA MANGONON DE
BUCCAT
This matter has been raised to this Superiority by the Baguio
Court of First Instance, since it only raises a purely law
issue.
On March 20, 1939, the plaintiff opened the case, in which
the defendant did not appear, despite having been duly
summoned. Therefore, the plaintiff allowed to present his
evidence, the lower court ruled the matter in favor of the
defendant. Hence this appeal.
1939 the plaintiff filed an action for annulment of marriage
before the CFI of Baguio City. The plaintiff claimed that he
consented to the marriage because the defendant assured
him that she was virgin. The trial court dismissed the
complaint.
Hence, this appeal. Basically, Godofredo Buccat (Plaintiff)
and Luida Mangonon (Defendant) got married on November
26, 1938. Luida gave birth after 89 days and on March 20,
1939 Godofredo filed for annulment of marriage before the
CFI because he was led to believe by Luida that she was a
virgin. The trial court dismissed the complaint, so Godofredo
appealed.

The plaintiff requests the annulment of his marriage with the ISSUE: Should the annulment for Godofredo Buccat’s
defendant Luida Mangonon de Buccat on November 26, marriage be granted on the grounds that Luida concealed
1938, in the City of Baguio, based on the fact that, by her pregnancy before the marriage?
consenting to said marriage, he did so because the
defendant had assured him that she was Virgin. RULING: No. Clear and authentic proof is needed in order
The following facts emerge from the decision of the lower to nullify a marriage, a sacred institution in which the State
Court: is interested and where society rests.
In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was
The plaintiff met the defendant in March 1938. After several concealment of pregnancy constituting fraud as a ground for
interviews, both were engaged on September 19 of the annulment. It was unlikely that Godofredo, a first-year law
same year. On November 26 of the same year, the plaintiff student, did not suspect anything about Luida’s condition
married the defendant in the Catholic cathedral of the City of considering that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy
Baguio. After living together for eighty-nine days, the (highly developed physical manifestation, ie. enlarged
defendant gave birth to a nine-month-old boy, on February stomach ) when they got married. As she gave birth less
23, 1939. As a result of this event, the plaintiff abandoned than 3 months after they got married, she must have looked
the defendant and did not return to marital life with she. very pregnant even before they were married. Thus, consent
freely given: ARTICLE 4 and 45 FC.
We see no reason to revoke the appealed sentence. Indeed,
it is unlikely that the plaintiff and appellant allegation that he
had not even suspected the taxed status of the defendant, SC affirmed the lower court’s decision. Costs to plaintiff-
being this, as proven, in a very advanced pregnant appellant.
condition. So there is no place to estimate the fraud the
appellant is talking about. The alleged by this in the sense
that it is not uncommon to find people with a developed
abdomen, seems childish to deserve our consideration,
especially since the plaintiff was a first-year law student.
Marriage is a very sacred institution: it is the foundation on
which society rests. To cancel it, clear and reliable evidence
is necessary. There is no such evidence in this matter.
Finding the appealed sentence adjusted to law, it must be
confirmed, as we hereby confirm, in all its parts, with the
costs to the appellant. That's how it is ordered.

FACTS: It was established before the trial court: The

Plaintiff met the defendant in March 1938. After several
interviews, both were committed on September 19 of that
year .On November 26 the same year, the plaintiff married
the defendant in a Catholic Cathedral in Baguio. They, then,
cohabited for about eighty-nine days. Defendant gave birth
to a child of nine months on February 23, 1939. Following
this event, Plaintiff and Defendant separated. On March 20,