Aquino

vs. Delizo

Voidable Marriage: Grounds for Annulment (Consent Obtained by Fraud)

Date: July 27, 1960
Ponente: Gutierrez David, J.

SUMMARY:
Fernando Aquino filed a complaint in September 1955
on the ground of fraud against Conchita Delizo, alleging
that at the date of their marriage on December 1954,
the respondent concealed the fact that she was
pregnant by another man. Sometime in April 1955
(about 4 months after their marriage), respondent gave
birth to a child. During the trial, Provincial Fiscal Jose
Goco represent the state in the proceedings to prevent
collusion. Only the petitioner testified and the only
documentary evidence presented was the marriage
contract between the parties. Delizo did not appear nor
presented any evidence. CFI-Rizal dismissed petitioners
complaint for annulment of marriage, which was
affirmed by CA thus a petition for certiorari to review
the decisions.

ISSUES:
1. WON concealment of pregnancy as alleged by
the petitioner constitutes as fraud and is
sufficient basis for annulment of marriage.

FACTS:
1. On December 27, 1954 Fernando Aquino
(petitioner)
married
Conchita
Delizo
(respondent).
2. On said marriage, respondent was already four
months pregnant, a fact she concealed from the
petitioner.
3. In April 1955, the respondent gave birth and a
complaint was filed on the basis of fraud for the
annulment of their marriage
Echiverri | Polido | 30 August 2015

4. At the trial, only the marriage certificate was

presented.
5. Without birth certificate of the child, the court
dismissed the complaint.
6. After an appeal of to the COA was denied, a
petition for certiorari to review was filed.

HOLDING:
Since the respondent was naturally plump, the
petitioner could not have known that the former was
pregnant at the time of marriage. Based on medical
opinion, the enlargement of a womans abdomen only
becomes apparent on the sixth month of pregnancy.
Evidences presented: Affidavit of Cesar Aquino who
admitted as father of the respondents first born and the
petitioners brother, birth cert of the child showing it
was born within 180 days after date of marriage.


RULING:
The court ruled that the concealment of the respondent
of the fact that she was pregnant at the time of the
marriage with another man other than her husband
constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment of
marriage.

The court remanded the case for new trial and
decision complained is set aside.


1

Related Provisions:

Article 46, Family Code
Any of the following circumstances
shall constitute fraud referred to in
Number 3 of the preceeding Article:

(1) Non-disclosure of a previous
conviction by final judgment of the
other party of a crime involving moral
turpitude;

(2) Concealment by wife of the fact
that at the time of the marriage, she
was pregnant by a man other than her
husband;

(3) Concealment of sexual transmissible
disease; regardless of its nature,
existing at the time of marriage; or,

(4) Concealment of drug addiction,
habitual alcoholism, or homosexuality
or lesbianism existing at the time of
marriage

No other misrepresentation or deceit
as to character, health, rank, or chastity
shall constitute such fraud as will
grounds for action for annulment of
marriage.