8/21/2017 G.R. No.

L-27930

TodayisMonday,August21,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L27930November26,1970

AURORAA.ANAYA,plaintiffappellant,
vs.

FERNANDOO.PALAROAN,defendantappellee.

IsabeloV.Castroforplaintiffappellant.

ArturoA.Romerofordefendantappellee.

REYES,J.B.L.,J.:

Appeal from an order of dismissal, issued motu proprio by the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, Manila, of a
complaintforannulmentofmarriage,docketedthereinasCivilCaseNo.E00431,entitled"AuroraA.Anaya,plaintiff
vs.FernandoO.Palaroan,defendant."

ThecomplaintinsaidCivilCaseNo.E00431alleged,interalia,thatplaintiffAuroraanddefendantFernandowere
marriedon4December1953thatdefendantFernandofiledanactionforannulmentofthemarriageon7January
1954onthegroundthathisconsentwasobtainedthroughforceandintimidation,whichactionwasdocketedinthe
Court of First Instance of Manila as Civil Case No. 21589 that judgment was rendered therein on 23 September
1959 dismissing the complaint of Fernando, upholding the validity of the marriage and granting Aurora's
counterclaim that (per paragraph IV) 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 premarital
relationship with a close relative of his and that "the nondivulgement to her of the aforementioned premarital
secretonthepartofdefendantthatdefinitelywreckedtheirmarriage,whichapparentlydoomedtofailevenbeforeit
hadhardlycommenced...frankdisclosureofwhich,certitudepreciselyprecludedher,thePlaintiffhereinfromgoing
thru the marriage that was solemnized between them constituted 'FRAUD', in obtaining her consent, within the
contemplation of No. 4 of Article 85 of the Civil Code" (sic) (Record on Appeal, page 3). She prayed for the
annulmentofthemarriageandformoraldamages.

DefendantFernando,inhisanswer,deniedtheallegationinparagraphIVofthecomplaintanddeniedhavinghad
premaritalrelationshipwithacloserelativeheaverredthatundernocircumstancewouldhelivewithAurora,ashe
hadescapedfromherandfromherrelativesthedayfollowingtheirmarriageon4December1953thathedenied
having committed any fraud against her. He set up the defenses of lack of cause of action and estoppel, for her
havingprayedinCivilCaseNo.21589forthevalidityofthemarriageandherhavingenjoyedthesupportthathad
beengrantedher.Hecounterclaimedfordamagesforthemaliciousfilingofthesuit.DefendantFernandodidnot
prayforthedismissalofthecomplaintbutforitsdismissal"withrespecttotheallegedmoraldamages."

PlaintiffAurorafiledareplywithanswertothecounterclaim,whereinshealleged:

(1)thatpriortotheirmarriageon4December1953,hepaidcourttoher,andpretendedtoshowerher
withloveandaffectionnotbecausehereallyfeltsobutbecauseshemerelyhappenedtobethefirst
girlavailabletomarrysohecouldevademarryingthecloserelativeofhiswhoseimmediatemembers
ofherfamilywerethreateninghimtoforcehimtomarryher(thecloserelative)

(2)thatsincehecontractedthemarriageforthereasonintimatedbyhim,andnotbecauseheloved
her, he secretly intended from the very beginning not to perform the marital duties and obligations
appurtenantthereto,andfurthermore,hecovertlymadeuphismindnottolivewithher

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1970/nov1970/gr_27930_1970.html 1/3
8/21/2017 G.R. No. L-27930
(3) that the foregoing clandestine intentions intimated by him were prematurely concretized for him,
when in order to placate and appease the immediate members of the family of the first girl (referent
being the close relative) and to convince them of his intention not to live with plaintiff, carried on a
courtshipwithathirdgirlwithwhom,aftergainingthelatter'slovecohabitedandhadseveralchildren
during the whole range of nine years that Civil Case No. 21589, had been litigated between them
(parties)(RecordonAppeal,pages1011)

Failinginitsattempttohavethepartiesreconciled,thecourtsetthecasefortrialon26August1966butitwas
postponed.Thereafter,whilereviewingtheexpendiente,thecourtrealizedthatAurora'sallegationofthefraudwas
legallyinsufficienttoinvalidatehermarriage,and,ontheauthorityofBrownvs.Yambao,102Phil.168,holding:

Itistruethatthewifehasnotinterposedprescriptionasadefense.Nevertheless,thecourtscantake
cognizancethereof,becauseactionsseekingadecreeoflegalseparation,orannulmentofmarriage,
involve public interest, and it is the policy of our law that no such decree be issued if any legal
obstaclestheretoappearupontherecord.

thecourtaquorequiredplaintifftoshowcausewhyhercomplaintshouldnotbedismissed.Plaintiff
Aurorasubmittedamemorandumincompliancetherewith,butthecourtfounditinadequateand
therebyissuedanorder,dated7October1966,forthedismissalofthecomplaintitalsodenied
reconsideration.

The main issue is whether or not the nondisclosure to a wife by her husband of his premarital relationship with
anotherwomanisagroundforannulmentofmarriage.

Wemustagreewiththelowercourtthatitisnot.Forfraudasaviceofconsentinmarriage,whichmaybeacause
foritsannulment,comesunderArticle85,No.4,oftheCivilCode,whichprovides:

ART. 85. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the
marriage:

xxxxxxxxx

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full
knowledgeofthefactsconstitutingthefraud,freelycohabitedwiththeotherasherhusbandorhiswife,
asthecasemaybe

Thisfraud,asviceofconsent,islimitedexclusivelybylawtothosekindsorspeciesoffraud
enumeratedinArticle86,asfollows:

ART. 86. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in number 4 of the
precedingarticle:

(1)Misrepresentationastotheidentityofoneofthecontractingparties

(2)Nondisclosureofthepreviousconvictionoftheotherpartyofacrimeinvolvingmoral
turpitude,andthepenaltyimposedwasimprisonmentfortwoyearsormore

(3)Concealmentbythewifeofthefactthatatthetimeofthemarriage,shewaspregnant
byamanotherthanherhusband.

No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such
fraudaswillgivegroundsforactionfortheannulmentofmarriage.

TheintentionofCongresstoconfinethecircumstancesthatcanconstitutefraudasgroundforannulmentof
marriagetotheforegoingthreecasesmaybededucedfromthefactthat,ofallthecausesofnullityenumeratedin
Article85,fraudistheonlyonegivenspecialtreatmentinasubsequentarticlewithinthechapteronvoidand
voidablemarriages.Ifitsintentionwereotherwise,CongresswouldhavestoppedatArticle85,for,anyway,fraudin
generalisalreadymentionedthereinasacauseforannulment.ButArticle86wasalsoenacted,expresslyand
specificallydealingwith"fraudreferredtoinnumber4oftheprecedingarticle,"andproceedsbyenumeratingthe
specificfrauds(misrepresentationastoidentity,nondisclosureofapreviousconviction,andconcealmentof
pregnancy),makingitclearthatCongressintendedtoexcludeallotherfraudsordeceits.Tostressfurthersuch
intention,theenumerationofthespecificfraudswasfollowedbytheinterdiction:"Noothermisrepresentationor
deceitastocharacter,rank,fortuneorchastityshallconstitutesuchfraudaswillgivegroundsforactionforthe
annulmentofmarriage."

Nondisclosure of a husband's premarital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated
circumstancesthatwouldconstituteagroundforannulmentanditisfurtherexcludedbythelastparagraphofthe
article,providingthat"noothermisrepresentationordeceitasto...chastity"shallgivegroundforanactiontoannul
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1970/nov1970/gr_27930_1970.html 2/3
8/21/2017 G.R. No. L-27930
a marriage. While a woman may detest such nondisclosure of premarital lewdness or feel having been thereby
cheatedintogivingherconsenttothemarriage,neverthelessthelawdoesnotassuagehergriefafterherconsent
was solemnly given, for upon marriage she entered into an institution in which society, and not herself alone, is
interested.Thelawmaker'sintentbeingplain,theCourt'sdutyistogiveeffecttothesame,whetheritagreeswith
theruleornot.

ButplaintiffappellantAnayaemphasizesthatnotonlyhasshealleged"nondivulgement"(thewordchosenbyher)
ofthepremaritalrelationshipofherhusbandwithanotherwomanashercauseofaction,butthatshehas,likewise,
alleged in her reply that defendant Fernando paid court to her without any intention of complying with his marital
dutiesandobligationsandcovertlymadeuphismindnottolivewithher.Plaintiffappellantcontendsthatthelower
courterredinignoringtheseallegationsinherreply.

This second set of averments which were made in the reply (pretended love and absence of intention to perform
duties of consortium) is an entirely new and additional "cause of action." According to the plaintiff herself, the
secondsetofallegationsis"apart,distinctandseparatefromthatearlieraverredintheComplaint..."(Recordon
Appeal, page 76). Said allegations were, therefore, improperly alleged in the reply, because if in a reply a party
plaintiffisnotpermittedtoamendorchangethecauseofactionassetforthinhiscomplaint(Calovs.Roldan,76
Phil.445),thereismorereasonnottoallowsuchpartytoallegeanewandadditionalcauseofactioninthereply.
Otherwise,theseriesofpleadingsofthepartiescouldbecomeinterminable.

Onthemeritsofthissecondfraudcharge,itisenoughtopointoutthatanysecretintentiononthehusband'spart
nottoperformhismaritaldutiesmusthavebeendiscoveredbythewifesoonafterthemarriage:henceheraction
forannulmentbasedonthatfraudshouldhavebeenbroughtwithinfouryearsafterthemarriage.Sinceappellant's
wedding was celebrated in December of 1953, and this ground was only pleaded in 1966, it must be declared
alreadybarred.

FORTHEFOREGOINGREASONS,theappealedorderisherebyaffirmed.Nocosts.

Concepcion,C.J.,Makalintal,Zaldivar,Castro,Fernando,Teehankee,BarredoandVillamor,JJ.,concur.

DizonandMakasiar,JJ.,areonleave.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1970/nov1970/gr_27930_1970.html 3/3