Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 522 views

    Villanueva Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    IkangApostol
    Orlando Villanueva filed for annulment of his marriage to Lilia Canalita-Villanueva, claiming threats of violence and duress forced him to marry. Lilia denied this and provided letters from Orlando showing affection. The Court ruled vitiation of consent did not occur, as Orlando's allegations of fear were not sufficiently established and his claims were untenable and intended to dismiss a pending bigamy case against him. The marriage annulment was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Villanueva Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    IkangApostol
    522 views1 page
    Orlando Villanueva filed for annulment of his marriage to Lilia Canalita-Villanueva, claiming threats of violence and duress forced him to marry. Lilia denied this and provided letters from Orlando showing affection. The Court ruled vitiation of consent did not occur, as Orlando's allegations of fear were not sufficiently established and his claims were untenable and intended to dismiss a pending bigamy case against him. The marriage annulment was denied.

    Original Title

    Villanueva-vs-Court-of-Appeals.docx

    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 for annulment of his marriage to Lilia Canalita-Villanueva, claiming threats of violence and duress forced him to marry. Lilia denied this and provided letters from Orlando showing affection. The Court ruled vitiation of consent did not occur, as Orlando's allegations of fear were not sufficiently established and his claims were untenable and intended to dismiss a pending bigamy case against him. The marriage annulment was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Villanueva Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    IkangApostol
    Orlando Villanueva filed for annulment of his marriage to Lilia Canalita-Villanueva, claiming threats of violence and duress forced him to marry. Lilia denied this and provided letters from Orlando showing affection. The Court ruled vitiation of consent did not occur, as Orlando's allegations of fear were not sufficiently established and his claims were untenable and intended to dismiss a pending bigamy case against him. The marriage annulment was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Villanueva vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 132955 October 27, 2006

    FACTS:
    In April 1988, Orlando Villanueva married Lilia Canalita- Villanueva before a trial court judge in Puerto
    Princesa. In November 1992, Orlando filed before the trial court a petition for annulment of his
    marriage. He claimed that threats of violence and duress forced him to marry Lilia who was then
    pregnant. Orlando anchored his prayer for the annulment of his marriage on the ground that he did
    not freely consent to be married to Lilia. He cited several incidents that created on his mind a
    reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave danger to his life and safety, to wit: the
    harassing phone calls from Lilia and strangers as well as the unwanted visits by three men at the
    premises of the University of the East after his classes thereat, and the threatening presence of a
    certain Ka Celso, a supposed member of the New People’s Army whom appellant claimed to have been
    hired by Lilia and who accompanied him in going to her home province of Palawan to marry her. On
    the other hand Lilia denied Orlando’s allegations and she said that Orlando freely cohabited with her
    after the marriage and she showed 14 letters that shows Orlando’s affection and care towards her.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the subject marriage may be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent under Article 45 of
    the Family Code.

    RULING:
    No. The court ruled that vitiation of consent is not attendant in this case. Therefore, the petition for
    annulment, which is anchored to his allegation that he did not freely give his consent, should be
    dismissed.

    Article 45(4) of the Family Code provides that a marriage may be annulled for any of the following
    causes, existing at the time of the marriage: 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

    The SC ruled that Orlando’s allegation of fraud and intimidation is untenable. On its face, it is obvious
    that Orlando is only seeking to annul his marriage with Lilia so as to have the pending appealed
    bigamy case [filed against him by Lilia] to be dismissed.

    On the merits of the case, Orlando’s allegation of fear was not concretely established. The Court is not
    convinced that appellant’s apprehension of danger to his person is so overwhelming as to deprive him
    of the will to enter voluntarily to a contract of marriage. It is not disputed that at the time he was
    allegedly being harassed, appellant worked as a security guard in a bank. Given his employment at
    that time, it is reasonable to assume that appellant knew the rudiments of self-defense, or, at the
    very least, the proper way to keep himself out of harm’s way. For sure, it is even doubtful if threats
    were indeed made to bear upon appellant, what with the fact that he never sought the assistance of
    the security personnel of his school nor the police regarding the activities of those who were
    threatening him. And neither did he inform the judge about his predicament prior to solemnizing their
    marriage. Fraud cannot be raised as a ground as well. His allegation that he never had an erection
    during their sexual intercourse is incredible and is an outright lie. His counsel also conceded before the
    lower court that his client had a sexual relationship with Lilia.

    You might also like