Buccat v Buccat (1941)

Buccat v. Mangonon de Buccat

April 25, 1941
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio.
Facts:
Godofredo Buccat and Luida Mangonon de Buccat met in March 1938, became engaged in September, and got
married in Nov 26.
On Feb 23, 1939 (89 days after getting married) Luida, who was 9 months pregnant, gave birth to a son.
After knowing this, Godofredo left Luida and never returned to married life with her.
On March 23, 1939, he filed for an annulment of their marriage on the grounds that when he agreed to
married Luida, she assured him that she was a virgin.
The Lower court decided in favor of Luida.
Issue:
Should the annulment for Godofredo Buccats marriage be granted on the grounds that Luida concealed
her pregnancy before the marriage?
Held:
No. Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a marriage, a sacred institution in which the State is
interested and where society rests.
In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was concealment of pregnancy constituting fraud as a
ground for annulment. It was unlikely that Godofredo, a first-year law student, did not suspect anything about Luidas
condition considering that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy (highly developed physical manifestation, ie.
enlarged stomach ) when they got married.
Decision:
SC affirmed the lower courts decision. Costs to plaintiff-appellant
Buccat v Buccat de Mangonon GR No. 47101 April 25, 1941
GODOFREDO BUCCAT
, plaintiff-appellant,vs.
LUIDA MANGONON DE BUCCAT,
defendant-respondent.
HORRILLENO,
J.:
FACTS:
1. It was established before the trial court:
a. The Plaintiff met the defendant in March 1938
b. After several interviews, both were committed on September 19 of that year
c. On November 26 the same year, the plaintiff married the defendant in a Catholic Cathedral in Baguio.
d. They, then, cohabited for about eighty-nine days
e. Defendant gave birth to a child of nine months on February 23, 1939
f. Following this event, Plaintiff and Defendant separated.
2. On March 20, 1939 the plaintiff filed an action for annulment of marriage before the CFI of Baguio City. The
plaintiff claimed that he consented to the marriage because the defendant assured him that she was virgin.
3. The trial court dismissed the complaint.
Hence, this appeal.
BASICALLY: Godofredo Buccat (Plaintiff) and Luida Mangonon (Defendant) got married on November 26, 1938.
Luida gave birth after 89 days and on March 20, 1939 Godofredo filed for annulment of marriage before the CFI
because he was led to believe by Luida that she was a virgin. The trial court dismissed the complaint, so Godofredo
appealed.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was fraud in obtaining the consent of Plaintiff to the marriage?

DECISION: There is no fraud because: The Supreme Court states that: We see no reason to overturn the ruling
appealed. It is unlikely that the plaintiff, Godofredo, had not suspected that the defendant, Luida, was pregnant. (As
she gave birth less than 3 months after they got married, she must have looked very pregnant even before they
were married.) Since Godofredo must have known that she was not a virgin, the marriage cannot be annulled.
Marriage is a very sacred institution: it is the foundation upon which society rests. To cancel, are necessary to clear
and irrefutable evidence. In this case no such evidence exists.
*Consent freely given: ARTICLE 4 and 45 FC.