Anaya vs Palaroan 36 SCRA 97

On Voidable Marriages
Facts
Plaintiff Aurora and defendant Fernando were married on 4 December 1953. Defendant Fernando filed an
action for annulment of the marriage on 7 January 1954 on the ground that hi conent wa obtained through
force and intimidation. Judgment wa rendered u!holding the "alidity of their marriage and granting Aurora#
counterclaim. $hile the amount of the counterclaim wa being negotiated %to ettle the &udgment'% Fernando
had di"ulged to Aurora that e"eral month !rior to their marriage he had !re(marital relationhi! with a cloe
relati"e of hi) and that %the non(di"ulgement to her of the aforementioned !re(marital ecret on the !art of
defendant that definitely wrec*ed their marriage' which a!!arently doomed to fail e"en before it had hardly
commenced ... fran* dicloure of which' certitude !reciely !recluded her' the Plaintiff' Aurora herein from
going thru the marriage that wa olemni+ed between them contituted ,F-A.D,' /he !rayed for the
annulment of the marriage and for moral damage.
Defendant Fernando' in hi anwer' denied ha"ing had !re(marital relationhi! with a cloe relati"e) he denied
ha"ing committed any fraud againt her. 0e et u! the defene of lac* of caue of action and eto!!el. 0e
counterclaimed for damage for the maliciou filing of the uit. Defendant Fernando did not !ray for the
dimial of the com!laint but for it dimial %with re!ect to the alleged moral damage.%
1$illing gyud i Fernando ma(annul ila *y iyang counterclaim not on the annulment but only limited to the
2moral damage3 then beide iya byah una nag file g dimi lang4
Issue
$hether or not the non(dicloure to a wife by her huband of hi !re(marital relationhi! with another woman
i a ground for annulment of marriage.
eld
!e "ust agree #it$ t$e lo#er court t$at it is not% For fraud a a "ice of conent in marriage' which may be
a caue for it annulment' come under Article &'( )o% *( o+ t$e Civil Code' which !ro"ide5
A-6. 75. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following caue' e8iting at the time of the marriage5
888 888 888
144 6hat the conent of either !arty wa obtained by fraud' unle uch !arty afterward' with full *nowledge of
the fact contituting the fraud' freely cohabited with the other a her huband or hi wife' a the cae may be)
6hi fraud' a "ice of conent' i limited e8clui"ely by law to thoe *ind or !ecie of fraud enumerated in
Article 79' a follow5
A-6. 79. Any of the following circumtance hall contitute fraud referred to in number 4 of the !receding
article5
114 :ire!reentation a to the identity of one of the contracting !artie)
1;4 <on(dicloure of the !re"iou con"iction of the other !arty of a crime in"ol"ing moral tur!itude' and the
!enalty im!oed wa im!rionment for two year or more)
134 =oncealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage' he wa !regnant by a man other than
her huband.
)o ot$er "isre,resentation or deceit as to c$aracter( ran-( +ortune or c$astity s$all constitute suc$
+raud as #ill give grounds +or action +or t$e annul"ent o+ "arriage.
1>abantay mo ngano =i"il =ode Article !ah di Family =ode? =o ang Family =ode 1977 byah na(enact daun
*nih nga cae *y around 1953(1999 !ah@4
6he intention of =ongre to confine the circumtance that can contitute fraud a ground for annulment of
marriage to the foregoing three cae may be deduced from the fact that' of all the caue of nullity
enumerated in Article 75' fraud i the only one gi"en !ecial treatment in a ubeAuent article within the
cha!ter on "oid and "oidable marriage. Bf it intention were otherwie' =ongre would ha"e to!!ed at Article
75' for' anyway' fraud in general i already mentioned therein a a caue for annulment. Cut Article 79 wa
alo enacted' e8!rely and !ecifically dealing with %fraud referred to in number 4 of the !receding article'%
and !roceed by enumerating the !ecific fraud 1mire!reentation a to identity' non(dicloure of a !re"iou
con"iction' and concealment of !regnancy4' ma*ing it clear that =ongre intended to e8clude all other fraud
or deceit. 6o tre further uch intention' the enumeration of the !ecific fraud wa followed by the
interdiction5 %<o other mire!reentation or deceit a to character' ran*' fortune or chatity hall contitute uch
fraud a will gi"e ground for action for the annulment of marriage.%
1$orthy to note that the intent of the =ongre i !lain and im!le. -emember a a rule in /tat =on if g
enumerate nah ang Aualification' the framer intend to e.clude all other. 0A0A naa Ay na learn ni Atty
=abrera@ Dbigyan<gJac*et@4
<on(dicloure of a huband, !re(marital relationhi! with another woman i not one of the enumerated
circumtance that would contitute a ground for annulment) and it is +urt$er e.cluded by t$e last
,aragra,$ o+ t$e article( ,roviding t$at /no ot$er "isre,resentation or deceit as to %%% c$astity/ s$all
give ground +or an action to annul a "arriage%
1/o na dimi ang firt contention ni Anaya naa !ah gyud iya bac* u! oy@ Diidido gyud iya in fairne'
!wede nah ni dili a!ilon a oral !ero a!ila nlang !d hehe !ra ma ama+e i Atty Dicdican 5! 4
Cut !laintiff(a!!ellant Anaya em!hai+e that not only ha he alleged %non(di"ulgement% 1the word choen by
her4 of the !re(marital relationhi! of her huband with another woman a her caue of action' but that he
ha' li*ewie' alleged in her re!ly that defendant Fernando !aid court to her without any intention of com!lying
with hi marital dutie and obligation and co"ertly made u! hi mind not to li"e with her. Plaintiff(a!!ellant
contend that the lower court erred in ignoring thee allegation in her re!ly.
En the merit of thi econd fraud charge' it i enough to !oint out that any ecret intention on the huband,
!art not to !erform hi marital dutie mut ha"e been dico"ered by the wife oon after the marriage5 hence
her action for annulment baed on that fraud hould ha"e been brought within four year after the marriage.
/ince a!!ellant, wedding wa celebrated in December of 1953' and thi ground wa only !leaded in 1999' it
mut be declared already barred.
1Dimi ilang mga counterclaim haha o by "irtue of <E =0EB=F they hould li"e ha!!ily e"er after@ 4