Anaya vs.

Palaroan
November 26, 1970
Ponente: J. Reyes J.B.L.
Topic: Consent freely given by both spouses; Effect of fraud
Facts:
1. Aurora and Fernando got married on Dec. 4, 1958. Fernando filed for
annulment on Jan. 7, 1954 claiming that his consent was obtained through
force and intimidation. Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint on Sep.
23, 1959.
2. While the amount of the counterclaim was being negotiated, Fernando
allegedly told Aurora that a few months before their wedding he had a
relationship with a close relative of his. Aurora claims that this kept secret led
to a fraud in obtaining her consent.
3. Fernando claims that there never was a relationship and that he never had
plans to live with her and escaped from her the day after their marriage.
4. Aurora claims next that Fernando only married her to escape a forced
marriage with a close relative and had no plans to ever live with her. She
further alleges that there was a third girl involved with whom Fernando has
children with.
Art. 85, NCC: A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the
time of the marriage:
4) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with
full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as her
husband or his wife, as the case may be.
Art. 86, NCC: Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in No. 4
of the preceeding article:
1) misrepresentation as to the identity of one of the contracting parties;
2) non-disclosure of the previous conviction of the other party f a crime involving m oral
turpitude, and the penalty mposed was imprisonment for 2 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.

Issues: Whether or not the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital
relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment
Decision: Appealed order is affirmed. Annulment denied.
Held
Non-disclosure
of
pre-marital
relationships is not ground for fraud
Petition for annulment denied

Ratio
Not
one
of
the
enumerated
circumstances in Art. 86.
Second set of accusations (pretended
love and no intention to live with her) is
additional causes of action and cannot
be added to the original cause of action.
Action for annulment based on husbands

intention not to perform marital duties

should have been brought to the court
within 4 years after the marriage.