AQUINO v. DELIZO
Topic: Voidable Marriages;
Grounds for annulment; fraud
Nature of the case: Petition
for certiorari to review CA decision affirming CFI decision dismissing
petitioner’s complaint for annulment of marriage with Conchita Delizo
Doctrine: Under the new Civil Code, 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 and is ground for annulment of
marriage. (Art. 85, par. (4) in relation to Art. 86, par. (3).
Facts:
Petitioner filed a case for
annulment of marriage to the respondent on the ground that respondent allegedly
at the date of her marriage to plaintiff on December 27, 1954, concealed the
fact that she was pregnant by another man, and sometime in April, 1955, or
about four months after their marriage, gave birth to a child.
In her answer, defendant
claimed that the child was conceived out of lawful wedlock between her and the
plaintiff.
At the trial, only the
plaintiff testified and the only documentary evidence presented was the
marriage contract between the parties. Defendant neither appeared nor presented
any evidence despite the reservation made by her counsel that he would present
evidence on a later date.
TC— dismissed complaint.
noting that no birth certificate was presented to show that the child was born
within 180 days after the marriage between the parties, and holding that
concealment of pregnancy as alleged by plaintiff does not constitute such fraud
as would annul a marriage.
Plaintiff submitted "petition to reopen for
reception of additional evidence", plaintiff tried to present the
certificates of birth and delivery of the child born of the defendant on April
26, 1955, which documents, according to him, he had failed to secure earlier
and produce before the trial court thru excusable negligence. The petition,
however, was denied.
CA - held that there has been
excusable neglect in plaintiff's inability to present the proof of the child's
birth, through her birth certificate, and for that reason the court a quo erred
in denying the motion for reception of additional evidence. On the theory,
however, that it was not impossible for plaintiff and defendant to have had
sexual intercourse during their engagement so that the child could be their
own, and finding unbelievable plaintiff's claim that he did not notice or even
suspect that defendant was pregnant when he married her, the appellate court,
nevertheless, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
On March 17, 1959, plaintiff
filed a motion for reconsideration, or, if such reconsideration be denied, that
the case be remanded to the lower court for new trial. In support of the
motion, plaintiff attached as annexes thereof the following documents:
1. Affidavit of Cesar Aquino (defendant's brother-in-law and
plaintiff's brother, with whom defendant was living at the time plaintiff met,
courted and married her, and with whom defendant has begotten two more
children, aside from her first born, in common-law relationship) admitting that
he is the father of defendant's first born, Catherine Bess Aquino, and that he
and defendant hid her pregnancy from plaintiff at the time of plaintiff's
marriage to defendant;
2. Affidavit of defendant, Conchita Delizo admitting her pregnancy by Cesar Aquino, her
brother-in-law and plaintiff's own brother, at the time of her marriage to
plaintiff and her having hidden this fact from plaintiff before and up to the
time of their marriage;
3. Affidavit of Albert Powell stating that he knew Cesar Aquino and
defendant lived together as husband and wife before December 27, 1954, the date
of plaintiff's marriage to defendant;
4. Birth Certificate of defendant's first born, Catherine Bess
Aquino showing her date of birth to be April 26, 1955;
5. Birth Certificate of Carolle Ann Aquino, the second child of
defendant with Cesar Aquino, her brother-in-law;
6. Birth Certificate of Chris Charibel Aquino, the third child of
Cesar Aquino and defendant; and
7. Pictures of defendant
showing her natural plumpness as early as 1952 to as late as November, 1954,
the November, 1954 photo itself does not show defendant's pregnancy which must
have been almost four months old at the time the picture was taken.
CA ordered the defendant
Conchita Delizo and Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, who was representing
the Government, to answer the motion for reconsideration, and deferred action
on the prayer for new trial until after the case is disposed of. As both the
defendant and the fiscal failed to file an answer, and stating that it
"does not believe the veracity of the contents of the motion and its
annexes," the Court of Appeals, on August 6, 1959, denied the motion. From
that order, the plaintiff brought the case to this Court thru the present
petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not concealment of
pregnancy as alleged by Aquino may constitute fraud as would annul a marriage.
Ruling: Yes
Under the new Civil Code,
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 and is ground for
annulment of marriage.
Here the defendant wife was
alleged to be only more than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage
to plaintiff. At that stage, we are not prepared to say that her pregnancy was
readily apparent, especially since she was "naturally plump" or fat
as alleged by plaintiff. According to medical authorities, it is only on the
6th month of pregnancy that the enlargement of the woman's abdomen reaches a
height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general
and apparent. If, as claimed by plaintiff, defendant is "naturally
plump", he could hardly be expected to know, merely by looking, whether or
not she was pregnant at the time of their marriage more so because she must
have attempted to conceal the true state of affairs.
The appellate court also said
that it was not impossible for plaintiff and defendant to have had sexual
intercourse before they got married and therefore the child could be their own.
This statement, however, is purely
conjectural and finds no support or justification in the record.
The evidence sought to be introduced at the new
trial (Affidavits), taken together with what has already been adduced would, in
our opinion, be sufficient to sustain the fraud alleged by plaintiff. The Court of Appeals should, therefore, not
have denied the motion praying for new trial simply because defendant failed to
file her answer thereto. Such failure of the defendant cannot be taken as
evidence of collusion, especially since a provincial fiscal has been ordered of
represent the Government precisely to prevent such collusion. As to the
veracity of the contents of the motion and its annexes, the same can best be determined
only after hearing evidence. In the circumstance, we think that justice would
be better served if a new trial were ordered.
Dispositive:
Wherefore, the decision complained of is set
aside and the case remanded to the court a quo for new trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment