Name:

Kara Denise V. Dupio

Instructor:Atty. Levy S. Estolloso
Subject:
JD 103 : Persons and Family Relations
Silliman University
Case Digest Assignment:
Fernando Aquino vs Conchita
Delizo
G.R. No. L-15853
July 27, 1960
Facts of the Case:
Fernando Aquino filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court requesting a
review of his case which was dismissed in the Court of Appeals. This was regarding the
annulment of his marriage to Conchita Delizo.
Fernando Aquino claims that Conchita Delizo allegedly concealed that she was
pregnant by another man, since she gave birth to a child four months after their marriage.
Delizo defended by saying that she and Fernando Aquino conceived the child out of
wedlock.
At the trial both parties were represented by their lawyers; only Fernando Aquino
testified and presented their marriage certificate as the only documentary evidence.
Conchita Delizo, on the other hand, did not appear or present any evidence.
Fernando Aquinos complaint for annulment of marriage was dismissed by the Court
of First Instance of Rizal, and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Issue: Will the concealment of pregnancy, as alleged by Fernando Aquino, be a grounds
for the nullity of his marriage to Conchita Delizo?
Ruling:
The 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 a ground for annulment of
marriage as stated in Article 46 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines, which says
concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by
a man other her husband. Delizo was allegedly to be only more than four months
pregnant at the time of her marriage. At this stage, it is hard to say that her pregnancy
was readily apparent especially since she was naturally plump or fat. It is only on the
6thmonth of pregnancy that the enlargement of the womans abdomen reaches a height
above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent.
In the following circumstances, the decision is set aside and the case is remanded to the
court a quo for new trial without costs.

Notes:

1. The CFI of Rizal dismissed the case because Fernando Aquino failed
to bring into evidence a proof that would show that Conchita Delizos
first born child was born 180 days after their marriage.
2. The Court of Appeals also dismissed the case because it doubted
the quality of truth of the documentary evidences presented by
Fernando Aquino in his motion for reconsideration. These evidences
were as follows:
Affidavit of Cesar Aquino admitting that he is the father of Conchita Delizos first
born.
Affidavit of Conchita Delizo admitting her pregnancy by Cesar
Aquino.
Affidavit of Albert Powell who claimed that Cesar Aquino and
Conchita Delizo lived together before being married to Alfredo
Aquino.
Birth certificates of the three children of Conchita Delizo.
Photos of Conchita Delizo 2 years before her marriage to Fernando
Aquino to support his claim of Conchitas physique.
3. The Supreme Court decided to remand the case to the CFI of Rizal
also for procedural reasons. It held that there was no evidence of
collusion especially since there was a Fiscal appointed specifically to
prevent collusion. Just because Conchita Delizo was not able to
respond to the complaint filed against her does not automatically mean
that she can be declared in default. This is supported by A.M. No. 02-1110-SC or the PROPOSED RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF
VOID MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES, specifically
Section 8.
Section 8. Answer. - (1) The respondent shall file his answer within fifteen days from
service of summons, or within thirty days from the last issue of publication in case of
service of summons by publication. The answer must be verified by the respondent
himself and not by counsel or attorney-in-fact.
(2) If the respondent fails to file an answer, the court shall not declare him or her in
default.
(3) Where no answer is filed or if the answer does not tender an issue, the court shall
order the public prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists between the
parties.

Legal Vocabulary:
1. Collusion - a secret agreement between two or more parties for a
fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.
In the aforementioned case, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal was asked to
represent the State to prevent collusion. Collusion would occur if
either spouses work together to lie to the court either in an affidavit or
through testimony in order to speed up either a petition for annulment
or declaration of nullity of marriage.
Reason behind this is procedure is specified in Article 1 of the Family
Code of the Philippines:
Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family
life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except
that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the
limits provided by this Code.
Marriage is a permanent union that cannot dissolved because of stipulations that may
arise from collusion between spouses.
Article 1 is also the reason why the State is represented in the case, as it clearly expresses
that marriage is an inviolable social institution whose consequences are governed by
law. This means that the outcome of the case affects society in general in terms of how
marriage may be viewed.
2. A quo - in English means from which
- regarding a court of first instance, or the decisions of a
previous court, known
as the courta quo
In the aforementioned case the court a quo is the Court of First
Instance of Rizal.
3. Veracity - truth or accuracy / the quality of being truthful or
honest