The case of Anaya vs Paraloan involves a dispute over the annulment of a marriage based on non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship. The court held that such non-disclosure does not constitute fraud under the Civil Code, as it is not listed among the grounds for annulment. Consequently, the annulment request was denied, emphasizing that the law does not recognize this type of deceit as grounds for annulment.
The case of Anaya vs Paraloan involves a dispute over the annulment of a marriage based on non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship. The court held that such non-disclosure does not constitute fraud under the Civil Code, as it is not listed among the grounds for annulment. Consequently, the annulment request was denied, emphasizing that the law does not recognize this type of deceit as grounds for annulment.
The case of Anaya vs Paraloan involves a dispute over the annulment of a marriage based on non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship. The court held that such non-disclosure does not constitute fraud under the Civil Code, as it is not listed among the grounds for annulment. Consequently, the annulment request was denied, emphasizing that the law does not recognize this type of deceit as grounds for annulment.
The case of Anaya vs Paraloan involves a dispute over the annulment of a marriage based on non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship. The court held that such non-disclosure does not constitute fraud under the Civil Code, as it is not listed among the grounds for annulment. Consequently, the annulment request was denied, emphasizing that the law does not recognize this type of deceit as grounds for annulment.
Aurora and Fernando were married on December 04, 1953. Fernando filed an action for annulment of the marriage on January 7, 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation. The RTC dismissed the complaint of Fernando and upheld the validity of the marriage and granted Aurora’s counterclaim. While the amount of the counterclaim was being negotiated “to settle the judgment,” Fernando had divulged to Aurora that several months prior to their marriage he had a pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. According to her, the non-divulgement to her of such pre-marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining her consent. She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando on such ground and asked for moral damages.
Issue:
Is non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman a ground for annulment of marriage?
Held:
No. Fraud is a vice of consent in marriage, which may be a cause for its annulment, comes under Article 85, No. 4, of the Civil Code, which provides:
Article 85. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage.
xxx
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting fraud, freely cohabitation with the other as her husband or his wife, as the case may be;
This fraud, as vice of consent, is limited exclusively by law to those kinds or species of fraud enumerated in Article 86:
Article 86. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in number 4 of the preceding article:
(1) Misrepresentation as to the identity of one of the contracting parties;
(2) Non-disclosure of the previous conviction of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude, and the penalty imposed was imprisonment for two years or more; (3) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.
Non-disclosure of a husband’s pre-marital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment; and it is further excluded by the last paragraph of the article, providing that “no other misrepresentation or deceit as to…chastity” shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. While a woman may detest such non-disclosure of pre-marital lewdness or feel having been thereby cheated into giving her consent to the marriage, nevertheless the law does not assuage her grief after her consent was solemnly given, for upon marriage she entered into an institution in which society, and not herself alone, is interested. The lawmaker’s intent being plain, the Court’s duty is to give effect to the same, whether it agrees with the rule or not. Hence, the case at bar does not constitute fraud and therefore would not warrant an annulment of marriage.
