Katipunan v Tenorio Marcos Katipunan is seeking for the annulment of his marriage to Rita Tenorio because she was

not of sound mind when he married her in 1919. Defendant alleged that she was mentally sound during the wedding and that the mental disorder came only several years after the wedding, which was the reason why she was confined in the San Lazaro Hospital in 1926. WON Tenorios insanity can be used as a ground for annulling the marriage NO. Insanity of one of the spouses after the celebration of the marriage cannot constitute a cause of nullity. The law makes it always necessary to show that the insanity of one of the contracting parties existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Without proof, every presumption goes in favor of validity of the marriage. Buccat v Buccat Godofredo and Mangonon Buccat were married on November 26, 1938. Mangonon gave birth to a boy of nine months on February 23, 1939, only 89 days after the wedding. Godofredo is seeking for the annulment of the marriage because the defendant tricked him into believing that she is a virgin. WON their marriage is annullable

Anaya v Palaroan Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married on December 4, 1953. Fernando, claiming that his consent was obtained through force, filed for annulment. The court dismissed the complaint. Aurora later filed her annulment case, stating as a ground his non-concealment of a premarital affair with his close relative. She said her consent was obtained through fraud and that the non-disclosure is wrecking their marriage. WON concealment of a pre-marital affair may be used as a ground for annulment NO. Fraud, as a vice of consent, is limited exclusively by law to those kinds enumerated in Art. 86. No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute as fraud as will give action for the annulment of marriage.

NO. Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency. Impotency must be satisfactorily established. Sarao v Guevara The couple was married on 3 June 1936. At the night of the wedding, they were not able to copulate because of pains in her private part and an oozing therefrom some perulent matter offensive to the smell. Upon examination, a tumor was found and her ovaries and uterus were removed making her incapable of procreation. Sarao claimed to have lost all desire to have access to his wife ever since. WON their marriage is annullable

NO. A temporary or occasional incapacity for copulation is not a ground for a decree of nullity. The defect must exist at the time of marriage and must be permanent. Defendant was not necessarily incapable of copulation when she married Ruiz v Atienza the plaintiff. Impotency is the ability to copulate, not to Jose Ruiz impregnated Pelagia Atienza out of wedlock. On procreate. November 14, 1938, her father, cousin-in-law, and 3 other persons visited Jose Ruiz and convinced him to marry People v Santiago Pelagia. The party, joined by Joses cousin and Pelagia, Felipe Santiago raped his niece, Felicita Masilang on 23 went to the Aglipayan Church, secured a marriage license November 1926. After having his way with her, he brought and went back to the Aglipayan Church to celebrate the her to the house of his uncle, who brought in a protestant wedding. Four days later, Jose Ruiz filed a suit for minister to marry Santiago and Masilang. Santiago then annulment claiming that he had been forced into wedlock. gave the girl a few pesos and sent her home. WON the marriage was valid NO. The marriage was void for lack of essential consent from both parties. He had no bona fide intention of making her his wife and the ceremony cannot be considered binding on her because of duress. Suntay v Cojuangco-Suntay Emilio Suntay was suffering from schizophrenia which had been manifest prior to his marriage to Isabel in 9 July 1958. Isabel filed a criminal case against Emilio, while Emilio filed for legal separation charging her with infidelity. The trial court declared the marriage null and void but in the body of the decision, the ground used was for annulment. WON the marriage was void or merely voidable The marriage is voidable. Being of unsound mind is a ground only for annulment and not for declaration of nullity.

NO. Her non-concealment that she is no longer a virgin is WON Ruiz was forced into wedlock not a ground for annulment. It is also not believable that she was able to hide her advanced state of pregnancy. NO. It was not established that Jose Atienza made any threat against the life of Ruiz with the balisong. The threat Aquino v Delizo to obstruct his admission to the bar based on immorality Conchita Delizo concealed her 4-month pregnancy from does not cause duress as to constitute a reason for annulling Fernando Aquino during their marriage on September 6, the marriage. Ruiz also had many occasions to escape. 1955. Aquino claimed that this was the child of another man and that he wants the marriage annulled because of this Jimenez v Caizares fraud. Defendant claimed that the child was conceived out On 7 June 1955, Joel Jimenez filed an annulment suit of lawful wedlock between her and the plaintiff. against Remedios Caizares, whom he married on 3 August 1950, upon the ground that the orifice of her genitals or WON concealment of pregnancy is a ground for vagina was too small to allow penetration of the penis for annulment copulation; that the condition existed before marriage; and that he left the conjugal home two nights and one day after NO. Under the Civil Code, concealment by the wife of the the wedding. Remedios refused to undergo a physical fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by examination to determine her condition. another man constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment of marriage. In the case at par, the wife was only four WON the marriage may be annulled on the strength only months pregnant, making the abdomen hardly noticeable, of the lone testimony of the husband who claimed and especially for the defendant who is naturally plump. testified that his wife was and is impotent

Jones v Hortiguela In re Interstate estate of the deceased Marciana Escao As Marciana Escao had died intestate, her widower Felix Hortiguela was appointed judicial administrator of her entire estate. Hortiguela and Angelita Jones, Marcianos daughter by her first marriage, were declared her only heirs. The court also granted Hortiguelas petition that his fees as administrator be fixed at P10,000. Angelita, who was still a minor was represented by her guardian Paz Escao de Corominas. After marrying Ernesto Lardizabal, Angelita filed a motion alleging that she was the only heir to her mother because the marriage between Marciana and Hortiguela was not valid, and that even if it is valid, Hortiguela was not entitled to a share in the usufruct of one-third of the inheritance. She wanted her husband to be made administrator of the estate, to declare the marriage of her mother to Hortiguela null and void, to name her the sole heir, and if the marriage is valid, to declare that Hortiguela is not entitled to the usufruct. Marciana was previously married to Arthur Jones. Jones left in January 1918. Nothing was heard from him ever since. In Oct 25, 1919, the court issued an order declaring Jones an absentee from the Philippines with the proviso that the declaration would take effect 6 mos after its publication. On April 23, 1921, almost a year last publication, the court issued another order for the taking effect of said absence. On May 6, 1927, Marciana was married to Hortiguela. Angelita contends that absence must be counted from April 23, 1921, thereby only 6 years and 14 days have elapsed from the May 1927 marriage. Because the law requires that absence is for 7 years, the subsequent marriage is null and void. The marriage was also not recorded in the registry. WON the marriage was valid WON Hortiguela is entitled to inherit in usufruct 1. It is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee. It has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee. For marriage, the law only requires that the former spouse be absent for 7 consecutive years, the present spouse does not know the former spouse to be living, and that there is a general presumption of death at the time of subsequent marriage of the present spouse. Absence should be counted from the date on which the last news from the absentee was received, that is in 1918, more than 9 years from marriage. The failure to record the marriage does not affect its validity.

2. Because he was lawfully married to the deceased, he is entitled to inherit, not only in testate but also in intestate succession. Tamano v Ortiz On 31 May 1958, Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano (Tamano) married Haja Putri Zorayda Tamano (Zorayda) in civil rites. On 2 Jun 1993, Tamano married Estrelita Tamano (Estrelita) also in civil rites. Tamano died on 18 May 1994. Zorayda, with son, then filed for the declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the ground of bigamy. They contended that the two parties misrepresented themselves to be divorced and single, respectively, when in fact both have subsisting marriages. Tamano never divorced Zorayda, while the annulment of Estrelitas previous marriage never became final and executory. Estrelita contended that the RTC of QC was without jurisdiction over the subject and nature of the action. She also alleged that only the parties to the marriage could file an action for annulment. She also contended that since Tamano and Zorayda were married in Muslim rites, the sharia courts should have jurisdiction. WON the RTC of QC has jurisdiction Since the marriage of Tamano and Zorayda were under the Civil Code, the RTC has jurisdiction. Under The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, RTCs have jurisdiction over all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations. Personal actions, such as the case at hand, may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined from the allegations of the complaint as the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs causes of action. The law is silent with regards to parties married both in civil and Muslim rites. Sharia courts are not vested with original jurisdiction when it comes to marriages celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws. The RTC are also not divested with their original jurisdiction in the case.