Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 794 views

    Villanueva v. CA, GR. No. 132955, October 27, 2006

    Uploaded by

    MonicaCelineCaro
    Orlando Villanueva filed a petition to annul his 1988 marriage to Lilia Canalita-Villanueva on the grounds of threats, violence, and duress. He claimed he did not consent freely to the marriage. However, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision but reduced the damages award. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected Villanueva's petition, finding that he failed to sufficiently prove his consent was vitiated, as he acknowledged writing love letters to Lilia after the marriage and did not inform authorities of any duress prior to the wedding. The Court upheld the validity of the marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Villanueva v. CA, GR. No. 132955, October 27, 2006

    Uploaded by

    MonicaCelineCaro
    794 views1 page
    Orlando Villanueva filed a petition to annul his 1988 marriage to Lilia Canalita-Villanueva on the grounds of threats, violence, and duress. He claimed he did not consent freely to the marriage. However, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision but reduced the damages award. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected Villanueva's petition, finding that he failed to sufficiently prove his consent was vitiated, as he acknowledged writing love letters to Lilia after the marriage and did not inform authorities of any duress prior to the wedding. The Court upheld the validity of the marriage.

    Original Description:

    PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Orlando Villanueva filed a petition to annul his 1988 marriage to Lilia Canalita-Villanueva on the grounds of threats, violence, and duress. He claimed he did not consent freely to the marriage. However, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision but reduced the damages award. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected Villanueva's petition, finding that he failed to sufficiently prove his consent was vitiated, as he acknowledged writing love letters to Lilia after the marriage and did not inform authorities of any duress prior to the wedding. The Court upheld the validity of the marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    794 views1 page

    Villanueva v. CA, GR. No. 132955, October 27, 2006

    Uploaded by

    MonicaCelineCaro
    Orlando Villanueva filed a petition to annul his 1988 marriage to Lilia Canalita-Villanueva on the grounds of threats, violence, and duress. He claimed he did not consent freely to the marriage. However, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision but reduced the damages award. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected Villanueva's petition, finding that he failed to sufficiently prove his consent was vitiated, as he acknowledged writing love letters to Lilia after the marriage and did not inform authorities of any duress prior to the wedding. The Court upheld the validity of the marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VILLANUEVA V.

    CA
    GR. No. 132955, October 27, 2006
    Effect of force, intimidation, and undue influence
    Petitioner: Orlando Villanueva
    Respondent: CA, Lilia Canalita-Villanueva
    Case: Petition for review of CAs decision, affirming with modification the
    Decision of RTC Valenzuela in dismissing petitioners petition for the annulment
    of his marriage to Lilia, and ordering him to pay moral and exemplary damages.
    Facts: Orlando Villanueva and Lilia Canalita-Villanueva got marred in 1988 in
    Palawan. In 1992, Villanueva filed a petition for annulment of his marriage on
    the ground of threats of violence and duress forcing him to marry Lilia who was
    already pregnant at the time. He alleged that he did not get her pregnant and that
    he never cohabited with her after the marriage. The child had died during
    delivery. In her answer, Lilia prayed for the dismissal of the petition, arguing that
    Villanueva freely and voluntarily married her; that petitioner stayed with her in
    Palawan for almost a month after their marriage; and that petitioner wrote letters
    to her after returning to Manila.
    RTC: trial court dismissed Fernandos complaint, ordering him to pay Lilia
    moral and exemplary damages.
    CA: Fernando appealed to the CA which affirmed the RTCs ruling, but reduced
    the award of moral and exemplary damages.

    worked as a security guard in a bank and as such, he should at least know basic
    self-defense. Also, he did not inform the judge about his predicament prior to
    solemnizing their marriage.
    He also alleged fraud because he was made to believe that Lilia was pregnant
    with his child when they were married. His excuse is that he could not have
    impregnated her because he was not physically prepared during their tryst, but
    this was negated by the narration of Fernandos counsel before the RTCthat
    the sexual act had been consummated in 1988 before the marriage.
    Instead of presenting his own strong evidence, Fernando resorted to undermining
    the credibility of Lilia by citing her errors in recalling the date of birth of their
    childthat she was off by a year.
    He also wrote 13 letters of love to Lilia of which he acknowledge 7, but later
    retracted and denied having voluntarily written them. If he was really under
    duress, how could he have denied his involvement in the other 6 letters?
    He cannot claim to annul his marriage because he and Lilia no longer cohabited
    after the marriage. Lack of cohabitation is, per se, not a ground to annul a
    marriage. Failure to cohabit becomes relevant only if it arises as a result of the
    perpetration of any of the grounds for annulling the marriage. He failed to justify
    his failure to cohabit with Lilia, thus the validity of his marriage should be
    upheld.

    He then raised to SC.


    Issue: W/N their marriage can be dissolved on the ground of vitiated consent?
    Held: NO.
    Ratio: Fernando claims that he did not freely consent to the marriage because
    was harassed and forced to marry her: harassing phone calls, unwelcome visits
    from three men after his classes at UE, and threatening presence of a certain Ka
    Celso who is allegedly a member of the NPA. The SC is not convinced that
    Fernandos apprehension of danger to his person is so overwhelming that it had
    deprived him of the will to enter voluntarily to a contract of marriage. He

    Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at
    the time of the marriage:
    xxx
    (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;

    You might also like