Case Title:

JOSE RUIZ, plaintiff and appellant, vs.

PELAGIA ATIENZA, defendant and appellee.

Date: March 18, 1941

G.R. No.: No. 5986
Ponente: Bengzon, J.
Nature of Action: Annulment based on
force/intimidation/threat
Topic:

Facts: Jose Ruiz and Pelagia Atienza, both single, were sweethearts. Nine months later, she became an unmarried mother. After
the babys birth on Nov. 14, 1938, Pelagies father Jose Atienza, Atty. Villavicencio her cousin-in-law, and three other persons
visited Jose Ruiz at the boarding house where he lived. They requested, and after some discussion, convinced him to marry Pelagia.
With his cousin Alfredo Asuncion, Jose went to Tanduay street where Pelagia was living, and from there went to the Aglipayan
Church at Maria Clara Street. They proceeded to secure a marriage license and later returned to the same church where the
marriage was celebrated in the evening.
His counsel has 'dramatized the visit of Jose Atienza and companions, and the "plans" drawn to force Jose Ruiz into the marriage,
Jose's passive and downcast attitude, all in an effort to maintainthe proposition that Jose Ruiz went with them that afternoon
"convinced" by the following "arguments":

the threats of the father supported by his "balisong"

the unveiled intimidation by Atty. Villavicencio that if he would not marry Pelagia Atienza, he would have difficulty when he
would take the bar examinations because, as he said, many have been rejected admission to the bar on the ground of
immorality; and

the promise of Atty. Villavicencio that Ruiz would be physically "safe" if he would go with .
It appears that in the course of the conversation during the visit, Ruiz made the statement that he could not marry Pelagia because
he was already a married man. This so aroused Jose Atienza that he grabbed Ruiz' necktie, exclaiming: "So you mean to fool my
daughter!" Those present intervened quickly, and the dispute stopped.

Issue: W/N Jose Ruiz was forced into marrying Pelagia Atienza by the use of force, undue
intimidation or threat
Ruling: No. It was not sufficiently established that Jose Atienze inflicted forced, undue intimidation
or threat against Jose Ruiz.
Ratio: The flare of anger is easily understandable. But it is not sufficiently established that Jose Atienzadisplayed any
"balisong", or made any threat against the life of Ruiz. In fact, only a one-and-a-half-inch knife was found in his
possession by the policeman whom the companions of Ruiz called upon seeing what they believed to be the beginning
of trouble.
As to the threat to obstruct his admission to the Bar, by filing charges against him for immorality, the authorities are
unanimous that it is not such a duress as to constitute a reason for annulling the marriage. And where a man marries
under the threat of, or constraint from, a lawful prosecution for seduction or bastardy, he cannot avoid the
marriage on the ground of duress.
As to the promise by Atty. Villavicencio, it is apparent that when defendant was invited to go with them and marry
Pelagia, he had some fears that he might be subjected to bodily harm in retaliation for the dishonor inflicted upon her
family. For this reason, he had to be assured by Villavicencio that he would be safe if he went with them. From this
statement, we cannot infer what appellant's attorney would cleverly infer, i. e., that Ruiz would not be safe if he did not
follow them.
Appellant would make it appear that that afternoon Ruiz was practically kidnapped by Pelagia's relatives until after the
marriage ceremony. That cannot be true. He had many occasions to escape, as pointed out in appellee's brief. He had
companions in the house whom he could have asked for help. There was even the policeman.
Now, considering that the law presumes strongly the validity of marriage once the formal ceremonies have been
completed, we are led to the conclusion that although plaintiff may not have looked upon the ceremony as the happy
culmination of youthful romance, still the evidence does not warrant a pronouncement that his consent to it was
obtained through force or intimidation.
The Marriage Law (sec 30, Act No. 3613) which, referring to "force"or "violence", does not seem to include mere

intimidation, at least where it does not in legal effectamount to force or violence. (See article 1267, Civil Code.)
Relevant Dissent-Concurring Opinion/Notes: