Ruiz vs Atienza, 40 OG 1903

FACTS

 Jose Ruiz and Pelagia Atienza, both single, were sweethearts. Loving perhaps too well,
she allowed him, in a moment of weakness, to have his way, with the result that nine
months later she became an unmarried mother
 After the baby's birth, i. e., on November 14,1938, Pelagia's father Jose Atienza, Atty.
Villavicencio (her cousin-in-law), and three other persons visited Jose Ruiz at the
boarding house where he lived, in Oregon street,.JVIanila. They requested, and after
some discussion convince, him to marry Pelagia
 the party, joined by Pelagia and others, went to the Aglipayan church at Maria Clara
street, Manila, then proceeded to secure a marriage license, and later returned to the
same Aglipayan church where the marriage was celebrated in the evening.
 Four days later, alleging that he had been forced into wedlock, Jose Ruiz brought this
suit to secure its avoidance.
 the threats of the father supported by his "balisong" ; the unveiled intimidation by
Atty.Villavicencio that if he would not marry Pelagia Atienza, he would have difficulty
when he would take the bar examinations because, as he said, many have been
rejected admission to the bar on the ground of immorality; and the promise of Atty.
Villavicencio that Ruiz would be physically “safe" if he would go with them
 Ruiz made the statement that he could not marry Pelagia because he was already a
married man. This so aroused Jose Atienza that he grabbed Ruiz' necktie, exclaiming:
"So you mean to fool my daughter!"

Whether or not plaintiff-appellant’s (Ruiz) marriage can be voided when it was allegedly done
under violence or duress.

No, the plaintiff-appellant’s (Ruiz) marriage can’t be voided when it was allegedly done under
violence or duress.

It is not sufficiently established that Jose Atienza displayed any "balisong", or made any threat
against the life of Ruiz. In fact, only a one-and-a-half-inch knife was found in his possession by
the policeman whom the companions of Ruiz called upon seeing what they believed to be the
beginning of trouble: As to the threat to obstruct his admission to the Bar, by filing charges
against him for immorality, the authorities are unanimous that it is not such a duress as to
constitute a reason for annulling the marriage. Appellant would make it appear that that
afternoon Ruiz was practically kidnapped by Pelagia's relatives until after the marriage
ceremony. That cannot be true. He had many occasions to escape, as pointed out in appellee's
brief.

We are led to the conclusion that although plaintiff may not have looked upon the ceremony as
the happy culmination of youthful romance, still the evidence does not warrant pronouncement
that his consent to it was obtained through force or intimidation.

Thus, the plaintiff-appellant’s (Ruiz) marriage can’t be voided when it was allegedly done under
violence or duress.