November 15, 2024
This is the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Villacorta, G.R. No. 249953 June 23, 2021
FACTS
In April of 2001, Melvin learned that Janufi was pregnant. Melvin was “surprised” and “doubtful” to learn Janufi was already one month pregnant because they had sexual intercourse only in March of 2001. Although Melvin doubted the paternity of the child, Janufi supposedly assured him that he was the only person she had sexual intercourse with. This put his doubts to rest. On December 1, 2001, Janufi gave birth to a baby girl named Mejan Dia and she and Melvin then began living together. After almost three years or on August 14, 2004, Melvin and Janufi finally got married. When the couple quarreled Melvin had the DNA test of the Mejan Dia. The DNA test result showed that there is a 00.00% probability that Mejan Dia is daughter of Melvin.
Melvin seeks annulment of their marriage on the ground of fraud alleging concealment of pregnancy.
“The Republic argues that the RTC decision annulling the marriage is not in accord with law and jurisprudence because the Family Code expressly provides that a marriage may be annulled on the basis of fraud through concealment only if “x x x at the time of the marriage, the wife was pregnant and she concealed the fact that such pregnancy was by a man other than her husband.” In the case at bar, Mejan Dia was already almost three years old when Melvin and Janufi got married on August 4, 2004. Evidently, Janufi was not pregnant at the time of her marriage and Article 46(2) cannot apply. Further, the OSG claims that it is clear from Janufi’s messages that she had no intention to deceive Melvin into acknowledging the paternity of Mejan Dia. While Janufi may have misrepresented the state of her chastity, it cannot be discounted that she honestly believed that Mejan Dia was sired by Melvin. The Court agrees.
“…. . . . . In this regard, the Family Code provides:
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(I) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(3) 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 husband and wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. (Underscoring supplied)
As opined by CA Justice Eduardo P. Caguioa, a member of the Civil Code Revision and Family Law Committee, “[a]lthough fraud to vitiate consent has been defined by the Civil Code as insidious words and machinations which lead a party to enter into a contract without which he would not have entered into, this general definition of fraud in the Civil Code is not absolutely applicable to marriage since the subsequent article of the Code (referring to Article 86 of the Civil Code) limits the kinds of fraud which will serve as grounds for annulment. Consequently, in order to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud, the fraud must consist of one of those enumerated in Article 86.” Article 86 of the Civil Code is the precursor of Article 46 of the Family Code, which now states:
Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:
(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant bv a man other than her husband;
(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or
(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.
“Based on the foregoing, it is evident that to constitute fraud that warrants annulment under Article 46(2): I) the wife must have been pregnant by a man other than her husband at the time of the marriage and 2) the wife must have fraudulently concealed the same.
“In this regard, the OSG correctly argues that the concealed pregnancy, which vitiates consent, must have existed at the time of the marriage. Justice Eduardo Caguioa explains that “[t]he essence of the fraud in this case is the non-disclosure of the present pregnancy of the wife x x x the pregnancy must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage, thus, if the wife had previous relations with other men and as a consequence of which she became pregnant or bore a child previously, the concealment thereof will not be a ground for annulling the marriage if at the time the marriage was celebrated the wife was not pregnant.” It is the concealment of the fact of pregnancy by another man at the time of marriage that constitutes fraud as a ground for annulment. “No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.
“In the instant case, the facts readily reveal that Mejan Dia was already almost three years old when Melvin and Janufi got married on August 4, 2004. As Janufi was not pregnant at the time of the marriage, any purported fraud she may have committed to induce Melvin to marry her cannot be considered the fraudulent concealment contemplated under Article 46(2). Indeed, the Court has held that not all fraudulent acts can be invoked to annul a marriage. The circumstances of fraud under Article 45(3) are exclusive and restrictive. In Anaya v. Palaroan, the Court resolved the question of whether or not the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman was a ground for annulment of marriage under Article 86 of the Civil Code. Speaking through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, the Court held that:
The intention of Congress to confine the circumstances that can constitute fraud as ground for annulment of marriage to the foregoing three cases may be deduced from the fact that, of all the causes of nullity enumerated in Article 85, fraud is the only one given special treatment in a subsequent article within the chapter on void and voidable marriages. If its intention were otherwise, Congress would have stopped at Article 85, for, anyway, fraud in general is already mentioned therein as a cause for annulment. But Article 86 was also enacted, expressly and specifically dealing with “fraud referred to in number 4 of the preceding article,” and proceeds by enumerating the specific frauds (misrepresentation as to identity, nondisclosure of a previous conviction, and concealment of pregnancy), making it clear that Congress intended to exclude all other frauds or deceits. To stress further such intention, the enumeration of the specific frauds was followed by the interdiction: “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.”
Non-disclosure of a husband’s pre-marital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment; and it is further excluded by the last paragraph of the article, providing that “no other misrepresentation or deceit as to [x x x] chastity” shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. While a woman may detest such non-disclosure of premarital lewdness or feel having been thereby cheated into giving her consent to the marriage, nevertheless the law does not assuage her grief after her consent was solemnly given, for upon marriage she entered into an institution in which society. and not herself alone, is interested. The lawmaker’s intent being plain, the Court’s duty is to give effect to the same, whether it agrees with the rule or not.
Leave a Reply