REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH 2
DAVAO CITY
ANTONIO DELOS ANGELES,
Case No. 05-LX-00067
Petitioner,
Vs.
ANNIE DELOS ANGELES,
Respondent,
TRIAL BRIEF OF PETITIONER ANTONIO DELOS ANGELES

APRIL JANE SALAS

CHARLENE GALENZOGA
TIUCO MITOS
MICHELLE BARANCO
CLARISSE NAVARRO
Counsels for Respondent
P. del Rosario St.,
Barangay Kamagayan,
USC Law and Business Building
Cebu City

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction ....
...3
Question Presented........
3
Statement of the Case....
....2
Argument I and Analysis.
.5
trial court err in holding that the petitioner is
barred from questioning the legitimacy of the child.
.6
petitioner did not collaterally attack the legitimacy of the
child....7
action to impugn the legitimacy of the child as it has
already prescribed .
.9
Argument II and
Analysis9
Under the family code of the philippines,
can Antonio delos Angeles validly file for annulment of
marriage..10
Conclusion...
....13

Certificate

of

Service....
..13
Table of Authority

Page

Article 166 of the Family Code..6

Estate of Benito Marcelo, 60 Phil. 442...7
Article 170 of the Family Code...8
Tison vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA5829
De Jesus vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 142877.9
Art. 45 of The Family Code of the Philippines..11
Art. 46 of The Family Code of the Philippines..11
Aquino v. Delizo, L-15853, July 27, 1960.12
INTRODUCTION
The Petitioner Antonio delos Angeles has brought suit
against Respondent Annie delos Santos, his wife. He alleges
that the Respondents claim that he cannot impugn the
legitimacy of the child is unmerited because of prescription.
Annie

delos

Angeles

pregnancy of the child.

denies

that

she

concealed

his

The petitioner wish to annul their

marriage pursuant to provisions of the Family Code of the

Philippines

which

provides

grounds

for

annulment

of

marriage, which concealment by the wife of the fact that at

the time of marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than
her husband, is one of those enumerated on the said code.

This petition for annulment of marriage is lodged in this

court.
Question Presented
A.

Under the Family Code of the Philippines provisions on

Paternity and

Filation, can the father collaterally attack the

legitimacy of the

child in the present case?

B. Under the provisions of the Family Code, can the marriage

be

annulled based on the ground of fraud for concealment

of the fact

that at the time of marriage, she was

pregnant by a man other

than her husband.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Mr. Antonio delos Angeles and his wife got married on
January 29, 2011. After exactly five months from their
marriage, Mrs. Annie delos Angeles bore a child whom she
introduces as her legitimate child with Antonio. Wanting and
needing to support his new family, Mr. delos Angeles, right
after their marriage, worked in the military and this caused
him to be assigned to different parts of the country. He
would try his very best to visit his family once in a while in
addition to sending them financial support. He never misses
a month of sending Annie and their son the sustenance that
they both need. But there were times when his work and
duties as a military man would make him too busy and so
sending the said support money becomes irregular.
4

Mr. delos Angeles was able to visit his family on 2014.

Being happy to have been with his wife and son, he eagerly
showed to them the loving care required from a father. But
things spiralled after a few weeks. The couple had an intense
quarrel and the both of them were starting to raise matters
from the past. As he left for work once again, Mr. delos
Angeles was carrying a heavy load on his shoulders. He was
emotionally pained from the quarrel he had with his wife. As
he was in service, he had realized that coming back to his
family was really an issue now. It felt to him that it became
difficult as things did become difficult since his last visit.
After a short period of time, even though Mrs. delos
Angeles knew of the nature of his husbands work, she was
already questioning the latters non-sending of financial
support to her and her son. This made her deliberately
complain in the office of the military, hoping that she could
receive some amount of money from her husband right there
and then. But instead, what she received a few months after
her complain was a summon for a petition for annulment of
marriage filed by Mr. delos Angeles. The petition for
annulment of marriage was on the ground of fraud, which
was manifested during their quarrel upon Mr. delos Angeles
knowing of his wifes concealment that she was pregnant
from

another

man

during their

marriage.

He

started

questioning Mrs. delos Angeles of the truth but the latter

5

would insist that the former was her one and only lover even
before they got married. But the fact that Mrs. delos Angeles
just gave birth less than nine months from their sexual
intercourse holds true that doubts on Mr. delos Angeles
paternal relationship with his son are hard to erase.
Mr. delos Angeles questions now his paternity with Mrs.
delos Angeles son. On the other hand, Mrs. delos Angeles
stated that she was willing to undergo a DNA Test just to
prove the questioned paternity but she just doesnt have the
enough resources. Mrs. delos Angeles also claimed that his
husbands ground for annulment is not meritorious because
of the length of time he allowed to pass without questioning
this.
ARGUMENT I
A. THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE
PETITIONER IS BARRED FROM QUESTIONING THE
LEGITIMACY OF THE CHILD.
The first point raised by repondent relates to an
assertion that the collateral attack of petitioner to the
legitimacy of child is improper. The court ruled in favor of the
defendant and denied the petitioner the chance to ascertain
the filial relationship and legitimacy of the child. The courts
decision in a case involving paternity and filiation should be
reversed and the action be denied.

The law allows only the father to impugn the legitimacy

of the child as provided under Article 166 of the Family Code
under Paternity and Filiation, the legitimacy of a child may
be impugned only on the following grounds:
(1) That it was physically impossible for the
husband to have sexual intercourse with his
wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days
which immediately preceded the birth of the
child because of:
(a)

the

physical

incapacity

of

the

husband to have sexual intercourse with

his wife;
(b) the fact that the husband and wife
were living separately in such a way that
sexual intercourse was not possible; or
(c) serious illness of the husband, which
absolutely prevented sexual intercourse;
(2) That it is proved that for biological or other
scientific reasons, the child could not have
been that of the husband, except in the
instance provided in the second paragraph of
Article 164;
These grounds are anchored on the great impossibility
of the husband to be the father of the child delivered by his
7

wife. A child born during a lawful marriage is always

presumed by law to be a legitimate child of the husband and
wife. But if there is a physical impossibility for the husband
to have sexual intercourse in the first 120 days before the
300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child,
this presumption is rebutted.
The facts in this case suggest that Mr. delos Angeles
could have been assigned in a different province within the
country, away from his wife, due to his work in the military
which he took right after the marriage. In Estate of Benito
Marcelo, 60 Phil. 442, the separation between the spouses
must be such as to make sexual access impossible and this
may take place when they reside in different countries or
provinces, and they have never been together during the
period of conception.
It has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that there
is physical impossibility for the spouses to have sexual
intercourse due to the nature of the work of Mr. Antonio
delos Angeles.
A.1. THE PETITIONER DID NOT COLLATERALLY
ATTACK THE
LEGITIMACY OF THE CHILD.
The

law

prohibits

that

legitimacy

be

attacked

collaterally. As provided under Article 170 of the Family

Code:

The action to impugn the legitimacy of

the child shall be brought within one
year from the knowledge of the birth or
its recording in the civil register, if the
husband or, in a proper case, any of his
heirs,

should

reside

in

the

city

or

municipality where the birth took place

or was recorded.
If the husband or, in his default, all
of his heirs do not reside at the place of
birth as defined in the first paragraph or
where it was recorded, the period shall
be two years if they should reside in the
Philippines; and three years if abroad. If
the birth of the child has been concealed
from or was unknown to the husband or
his heirs, the period shall be counted
from the discovery or knowledge of the
birth of the child or of the fact of
registration of said birth, whichever is
earlier.
In the case of Tison vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA582,
the ruling states

that legitimacy

cannot be attacked

collaterally but only directly by the husband of the nieces

mother or the husband of the wife. Likewise, in the case of
9

De Jesus vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 142877, October 2, 2001,

impugning the legitimacy of the child cannot be made in
action for partition as this is a collateral attack.
The petitioner did not attack collaterally the legitimacy
of the child. To the fact that he directly filed an action for
ascertaining his paternal relationship of the child for there is
doubt if the child is his own. As only Mr. Antonio delos
Angeles can file a direct action impugning such legitimacy.
And upon his death, the heirs can ascertain the legitimacy
governed by the second paragraph of Article 170.
A.2. THE PETITIONER IS BARRED TO FILE ACTION
TO IMPUGN THE LEGITIMACY OF THE CHILD AS IT
HAS ALREADY
PRESCRIBED.
The law provides three prescriptive periods for the
husband in proper case; impugn the legitimacy of the child.
On the second paragraph of Article 170 of the Family Code:
xxxxxxx
If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do
not reside at the place of birth as defined in the
first paragraph or where it was recorded, the
period shall be two years if they should reside in
the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the
birth of the child has been concealed from or was
unknown to the husband or his heirs, the period
shall be counted from the discovery or knowledge
10

of the birth of the child or of the fact of registration

of said birth, whichever is earlier.
The one, two and three years prescriptive periods is
counted from the knowledge of the birth of the child or
recording in the civil register and not from the knowledge
that the child is not his. Therefore, Mr. Antonio is barred to
file the action because of prescription.
Wherefore, premises considered, we ask the honorable
court to Reconsider and allow the petitioner to ascertain the
legitimacy of the child as it is impossible for him to be the
father of the child. Also, for better judgement, before it
comes to its finality, the DNA test is conducted as ordered by
the court to prove the legitimacy.
ARGMENT II
A.UNDER THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CAN
ANTONIO
DELOS
ANGELES
VALIDLY
FILE
FOR
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE AGAINST HIS WIFE ANNIE
DELOS ANGELES ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD FOR
ALLEGEDLY CONCEALING HER PREGNANCY FROM
ANOTHER MAN?
The law admits of two legal actions that can be taken in
order to dissolve a marriage bond: Annulment of voidable
marriages and Declaration of Nullity of void marriages.

11

The circumstance of 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 as per Art. 46
of The Family Code of the Philippines and Fraud is one of the
grounds of annulment as provided for Art. 45 of the same
Code.
Art. 45 A marriage may be annulled for
any of the following causes, existing at the
time of the marriage:
1) xxx;
2) xxx;
3) That the consent of either party was
obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterward, with full knowledge of the
facts

constituting

the

fraud,

freely

cohabited with the other as husband

and wife;
4) xxx;
5) xxx;
6) xxx;
Art.

46

circumstances

Any
shall

of

the

following

constitute

fraud

referred to in Number 3 of the preceding

Article:
12

1) xxx;
2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that
at the time of the marriage, she was
pregnant by a man other than her
husband;
3) xxx;
4) xxx;
xxx
Concealment by the wife of her pregnancy by a man
other than her husband could be appreciated as fraud when
the concealment is still very possible. The facts of the case
shows that Mrs. delos Angeles could have very well managed
to hide her pregnancy during her relationship with Mr. delos
Angeles. She was four months pregnant during their wedding
which could have not been apparent in physical terms.
In Aquino v. Delizo, L-15853, July 27, 1960, the Supreme
Court held that a pregnancy of about four months is not
readily apparent, particularly if the woman is naturally
plump. There would then be no reason why this case should
not prosper. There was malicious intent of the wife in the
case at bar in concealing the fact of her pregnancy. Had she
been honest of the true situation of her pregnancy and the

13

father thereof, petitioner would not have married her in the

first place.
While the State aims to protect the sanctity of marriage
as the inviolable social institution, it is also hidebound to
grant relief and annulment of Marriage in cases where
Marriage would not have come into place had there been no
fraud. Here, the wife employs fraud and obliges the husband
to marry her. This fraud through and through.

Conclusion
Wherefore, Petitioner requests that this court affirm the
action for annulment of marriage based on the merit of the
case regarding the fraud made by the wife. And pray for
whatever further relief this court deems fair and appropriate.
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED,
APRIL JANE SALAS
CHARLENE GALENZOGA
TIUCO MITOS
14

MICHELLE BARANCO
CLARISSE NAVARRO
/s/ OCHU FIRM MO #42283
401 EH 7TH Street, Block 1
Davao City
(816) 263-3780
(816) 264-0779 (Facsimile)
ohio.firm@yahoo.com
COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
We hereby certify that on this 22nd day of February 2015, a copy of the
foregoing Petitioners Brief was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be
sent by operation of the Courts electronic filing system to all parties indicated in
the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by regular Philippine
mail. Parties may also access this filing through the Courts electronic filing
system.

15