Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

GR No. 47101 April 25, 1941

GODOFREDO BUCCAT, applicant-appellant,

v.
LUKE MANGONON OF BUCCAT, defendant-appealed.

D. Feliciano Leviste, D. Tomas P. Panganiban and Mrs. Sotera N. Megia in representation of the appellant.
Mrs. Luida Mangonon of Buccat in her own representation.

HORRILLENO, J .:

This case has been elevated to this Superiority by the Court of First Instance of Baguio, since it only raises a question purely of right.

On March 20, 1939, the plaintiff initiated the present case, in which the defendant did not appear, despite having been duly
summoned. As a result, when the plaintiff was allowed to present his evidence, the lower court ruled in favor of the defendant. Hence this
appeal.

The applicant seeks the annulment of his marriage to the defendant Luida Mangonon de Buccat on November 26, 1938, in the City of
Baguio, on the grounds that, by consenting to the said marriage, he did so because the defendant had assured her that she was Virgin.

From the decision of the lower court the following facts arise:

The complainant met the defendant in March 1938. After several interviews, both were committed on September 19 of the same year. On
26 November of the same year, the plaintiff married the defendant in the Catholic cathedral of the City of Baguio. Desoues to live
together for a period of eighty-nine days, the defendant gave birth to a nine-month-old boy, on February 23, 1939. As a result of this
event, the plaintiff abandoned the defendant and did not return to marital life with she.

We see no reason to revoke the judgment appealed. In fact, the plaintiff's and appellant's allegation that the defendant and appellant had
not even suspected the pregnant state of the defendant is improbable, as it is proven, in very advanced pregnancy. So there is no place to
estimate the fraud of which the appellant speaks. The allegation that it is not uncommon to find persons of the abdomen developed seems
childish to deserve our consideration, especially since the plaintiff was a first-year student of law.

Marriage is a sacratistical institution: it is the foundation on which society rests. To clear it, clear and reliable evidence is needed. There is
no such evidence in this case.

Finding the appellate judgment adjusted to law, must be confirmed, as we hereby confirm, in all its parts, with the costs to the
appellant. That is how it is commanded.

Avanceña, Pres., Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, MM., Are satisfied.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation