Lukban vs.

Republic therefore, clear that a judicial declaration that a person is presumptively

G.R. No. L-8492 dead, because he had been unheard from in seven years, being a
February 29, 1956 presumption juris tantum only, subject to contrary proof, cannot reach the
stage of finality or become final.”
Bautista-Angelo, J:
Fallo: The decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as
Facts: to costs.
Petitioner Lourdes G. Lukban contracted marriage with Francisco Chuidian
on December 10, 1933. A few days later, on December 27, Francisco THIRD DIVISION
left Lourdes after a violent quarrel. She did not hear from him after that [G.R. No. 136467. April 6, 2000]
day.  Her diligent search, inquiries from his parents and friends, and search ANTONIA ARMAS Y CALISTERIO, petitioner, vs. MARIETTA CALISTERIO,
in his last known address, proved futile. Believing her husband was already respondent.
dead since he had been absent for more than twenty years, petitioner filed
a petition in 1956 for a declaration that she is a widow of her husband who Facts:
is presumed to be dead and has no legal impediment to contract a Petitioner Antonia Armas y Calisterio, a surviving sister of
subsequent marriage.  Teodorico, filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition entitled, "In the
Issue: Matter of Intestate Estate of the Deceased Teodorico Calisterio y
Whether or not the petitioner can be declared widow of her Cacabelos, Antonia Armas, Petitioner," claiming to be inter alia, the sole
husband who is presumed to be dead. surviving heir of Teodorico Calisterio, the marriage between the latter and
respondent Marietta Espinosa Calisterio being allegedly bigamous and
Held: thereby null and void. She prayed that her son Sinfroniano C. Armas, Jr., be
No. We believe that the petition at bar comes within the purview of our appointed administrator, without bond, of the estate of the deceased and
decision in the case of Nicolai Szartraw, 46 Off. Gaz., 1st Sup., 243, wherein that the inheritance be adjudicated to her after all the obligations of the
it was held that a petition for judicial declaration that Petitioner’s husband estate would have been settled. Respondent Marietta opposed the
is presumed to be dead cannot be entertained because it is not authorized petition. Marietta stated that her first marriage with James Bounds had
by law, and if such declaration cannot be made in a special proceeding been dissolved due to the latter's absence, his whereabouts being
similar to the present, much less can the court determine the status unknown, for more than eleven years before she contracted her second
of Petitioner as a widow since this matter must of necessity depend upon marriage with Teodorico. Contending to be the surviving spouse of
the fact of death of the husband. This the court can declare upon proper Teodorico, she sought priority in the administration of the estate of the
evidence, but not to decree that he is merely presumed to be dead. decedent.
(Nicolai Szartraw, 46 Off. Gaz., 1st sup. 243).
The philosophy behind the ruling that such judicial pronouncement cannot Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the marriage
be made in a proceeding of this nature is well expressed in the case above- between oppositor-appellant and the deceased Teodorico Calisterio is
cited. Thus, we there said that “A judicial pronouncement to that effect, bigamous for failure of the former to secure a decree of the presumptive
even if final and executory, would still be a prima facie presumption only. It death of her first spouse?
is still disputable. It is for that reason that it cannot be the subject of a Ruling:
judicial pronouncement or declaration, if it is the only question or matter Under the 1988 Family Code, in order that a subsequent bigamous
involved in a case, or upon which a competent court has to pass .It is, marriage may exceptionally be considered valid, the following conditions

1
must concur; viz.: (a) The prior spouse of the contracting party must have
been absent for four consecutive years, or two years where there is danger Held:
of death under the circumstances stated in Article 391 of the Civil Code at No. Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be deemed to have been
the time of disappearance; (b) the spouse present has a well-founded satisfactorily established, because from the commencement of the
belief that the absent spouse is already dead; and (c) there is, unlike the proceedings until the entry of the decree she had abstained from taking
old rule, a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for part therein. Although her refusal to be examined or failure to appear in
which purpose the spouse present can institute a summary proceeding in court show indifference on her part, yet from such attitude the
court to ask for that declaration. The last condition is consistent and in presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence could not arise or
consonance with the requirement of judicial intervention in subsequent be inferred because women of this country are by nature coy, bashful and
marriages as so provided in Article 41, in relation to Article 40, of the shy and would not submit to a physical examination unless compelled to
Family Code. by competent authority. This the Court may do without doing violence to
Fallo: and infringing in this case is not self-incrimination. She is not charged with
WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of the Coin of Appeals in CA G.R. CV any offense. She is not being compelled to be a witness against
No. 51574 is AFFIRMED except insofar only as it decreed in paragraph (c) of herself.1 "Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be
the dispositive portion thereof that the children of petitioner are likewise presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency." 2 The lone testimony of
entitled, along with her, to the other half of the inheritance, in lieu of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse is
which, it is hereby DECLARED that said one-half share of the decedent's insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together as
estate pertains solely to petitioner to the exclusion of her own children. No husband and wife.
costs.
Fallo:

Jimenez vs. Canizares The decree appealed from is set aside and the case remanded to the lower
L-12790 court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision, without
August 31, 1960 pronouncement as to costs

G.R. No. 132955            

Facts: October 27, 2006
The plaintiff prays for a decree annulling his marriage to the defendant ORLANDO VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
contracted before a judge of the municipal court of Zamboanga City, upon LILIA CANALITA-VILLANUEVA, respondents.
the ground that the office of her genitals or vagina was to small to allow
the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation; that the condition Ynares-Santiago, J:
of her genitals as described above existed at the time of marriage and Facts:
continues to exist; and that for that reason he left the conjugal home two Orlando filed with the trial court a petition for annulment of his
nights and one day after they had been married. marriage alleging that threats of violence and duress forced him into
marrying Lilia, who was already pregnant; that he did not get her pregnant
Issue: Whether the marriage in question may be annulled on the strength prior to the marriage; that he never cohabited with her after the marriage;
only of the lone testimony of the husband who claimed and testified that and that he later learned that private respondent's child died during
his wife was and is impotent delivery. Lilia prayed for the dismissal of the petition, arguing that

2
petitioner freely and voluntarily married her; that petitioner stayed with private respondent, is AFFIRMED. However, the award of moral and
her in Palawan for almost a month after their marriage; that petitioner exemplary damages is DELETED for lack of basis.
wrote letters to her after he returned to Manila, during which private SO ORDERED.
respondent visited him personally; and that petitioner knew about the
progress of her pregnancy, which ended in their son being born Aquino vs. Delizo
prematurely. 109 Phil. 21
Issue: July 27 1960
Whether the subject marriage may be annulled on the ground of
vitiated consent Gutierrez-David, J:
Held:
No. The Court is not convinced that appellant’s apprehension of danger to Facts: Petitioner requests the annulment of her marriage on the ground of
his person is so overwhelming as to deprive him of the will to enter fraud, claiming that his wife was 4 months pregnant at the time that they
voluntarily to a contract of marriage. It is not disputed that at the time he were married and the child was that of another man. The appellate court
was allegedly being harassed, appellant worked as a security guard in a dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was unbelievable that the
bank. Given his employment at that time, it is reasonable to assume that petitioner was unable to tell if his wife was pregnant.
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 Issue: Whether or not the marriage can be annulled on the ground of fraud
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 Held:
nor the police regarding the activities of those who were threatening him. No. The defendant wife was alleged to be only more than four months
And neither did he inform the judge about his predicament prior to pregnant at the time of her marriage to plaintiff. At that stage, we are not
solemnizing their marriage. Appellant also invoked fraud to annul his prepared to say that her pregnancy was readily apparent, especially since
marriage, as he was made to believe by appellee that the latter was she was "naturally plump" or fat as alleged by plaintiff. According to
pregnant with his child when they were married. Appellant’s excuse that medical authorities, even on the 5th month of pregnancy, the enlargement
he could not have impregnated the appellee because he did not have an of a woman's abdomen is still below the umbilicus, that is to say, the
erection during their tryst is flimsy at best, and an outright lie at worst. The enlargement is limited to the lower part of the abdomen so that it is hardly
complaint is bereft of any reference to his inability to copulate with the noticeable and may, if noticed, be attributed only to fat formation on the
appellee. His counsel also conceded before the lower court that his client lower part of the abdomen. It is only on the 6th month of pregnancy that
had a sexual relationship with the appellee. He also narrated that the enlargement of the woman's abdomen reaches a height above the
sometime in January 1988, he and the appellee went to a hotel where "the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and
sexual act was consummated, with the defendant on top. apparent. (See Lull, Clinical Obstetrics, p. 122) If, as claimed by plaintiff,
defendant is "naturally plump", he could hardly be expected to know,
Fallo: WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The January 26, 1998 merely by looking, whether or not she was pregnant at the time of their
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51832 affirming with marriage more so because she must have attempted to conceal the true
modification the January 12, 1996 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of state of affairs. Even physicians and surgeons, with the aid of the woman
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172 in Civil Case No. 3997-V-92 herself who shows and gives her subjective and objective symptoms, can
dismissing petitioner’s petition for the annulment of his marriage with only claim positive diagnosis of pregnancy in 33% at five months. and 50%
at six months.

3
Fallo: Wherefore, the decision complained of is set aside and the case Fallo:
remanded to the court a quo for new trial. Without costs. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the appealed order is hereby affirmed. No
costs.

Anaya vs. Palaroan Ocampo vs. Florenciano

36 SCRA 97 107 Phil. 35
G.R. No. L-27930 G.R. No. L-13553            
November 26, 1970 February 23, 1960

REYES, J.B.L., J.: Bengzon, J:

Facts: Defendant Fernando filed an action for annulment on grounds that Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint of adultery against his wife but was
his consent to the marriage was obtained through force and intimidation. denied by the Court of First Instance. Through several testimonies, it was
The complaint was dismissed in Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, found that in March1951, defendant maintained illicit relations with one
Manila. Herein petitioner then sought the annulment of her marriage to Jose Arcalas. After plaintiff found out, defendant was sent to Manila to
Fernando on the grounds of fraud, saying that her husband concealed the study wherein she had several illicit relations with other men. On June
fact that he had marital relations with another woman prior to the 1955, plaintiff found his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with one
marriage. Nelson Orzame. Plaintiff then and there told his wife of his intention of
filing for legal separation. The Court of Appeals held that the time for filing
Issue: a charge of adultery on the first case had prescribed. Also, on the second
Whether or not the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre- case, CA held that they cannot render a decree of separation on the
marital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of ground of confession of judgment.
marriage
Issue: Whether or not a legal separation should be decreed on basis of
Held: confession of judgment
No. 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 Held: Yes. The court held that the “confession of judgment”--which
the article, providing that "no other misrepresentation or deceit as to ... happens when a defendant confesses in court the right of plaintiff to his
chastity" shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. While a demand, did not occur because such confession happened outside of
woman may detest such non-disclosure of premarital lewdness or feel court. Had there been a confession of judgment, the decree should still be
having been thereby cheated into giving her consent to the marriage, granted since there was a preponderance of evidence as provided by the
nevertheless the law does not assuage her grief after her consent was plaintiff. If the court will not allow separation despite of the evidence, any
solemnly given, for upon marriage she entered into an institution in which defendant who opposes separation will merely confess in court.
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 Fallo: Wherefore, finding no obstacles to the aggrieved husband's petition
the rule or not. we hereby reverse the appealed decision and decree a legal separation

4
between these spouse, all the consequent effects. Costs of all instances
against Serafina Florenciano. So ordered. Fallo:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is MODIFIED. 

Dios Carlos vs. Sandoval

G.R No. 179922
December 6, 2008 Republic vs. CA
G. R. No. 159614
Reyes, R.T., J: December 9, 2005

Facts: Callejo, J:

Petitioner commenced an action against respondents before the court a Facts:

quo with the following causes of action: (a) declaration of nullity of Alan B. Alegro filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
marriage; (b) status of a child; (c) recovery of property; (d) reconveyance; Catbalogan, Samar, Branch 27, for the declaration of presumptive death of
and (e) sum of money and damages. The complaint was raffled to Branch his wife, Rosalia (Lea) A. Julaton.  Sometime in June 1995, he decided to go
256 of the RTC in Muntinlupa.In his complaint, petitioner asserted that the to Manila to look for Lea, but his mother asked him to leave after the town
marriage between his late brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad was a fiesta of Catbalogan, hoping that Lea may come home for the fiesta.  Alan
nullity in view of the absence of the required marriage license. decided to work as a part-time taxi driver.  On his free time, he would look
for Lea in the malls but still to no avail. n June 20, 2001, Alan reported
Issue: Lea’s disappearance to the local police station. The police authorities
Whether a marriage may be declared void ab initio through a judgment on issued an Alarm Notice on July 4, 2001. Alan also reported Lea’s
the pleadings or a summary judgment and without the benefit of a trial disappearance to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on July 9,
2001. Barangay Captain Juan Magat corroborated the testimony of Alan.  
Held:
No. With the advent of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, known as "Rule on Issue: Whether or not respondent Alan B. Alegro failed to prove that he
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of had a well-founded belief that Lea was already dead
Voidable Marriages," the question on the application of summary
judgments or even judgment on the pleadings in cases of nullity or Held:
annulment of marriage has been stamped with clarity. The significant
principle laid down by the said Rule, which took effect on March 15,
Yes. The spouse present is, thus, burdened to prove that his spouse has
200312 is found in Section 17, viz.:
been absent and that he has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse
SEC. 17. Trial. - (1) The presiding judge shall personally conduct
is already dead before the present spouse may contract a subsequent
the trial of the case. No delegation of evidence to a commissioner shall be
marriage.  The law does not define what is meant by a well-grounded
allowed except as to matters involving property relations of the spouses.
belief.  The belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and
(2) The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of
honest to goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of
marriage must be proved. No judgment on the pleadings, summary
the absent spouse and whether the absent spouse is still alive or is already
judgment, or confession of judgment shall be allowed.

5
dead. Whether or not the spouse present acted on a well-founded belief of "ARTICLE 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of
death of the absent spouse depends upon the inquiries to be drawn from a marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned
great many circumstances occurring before and after the disappearance of to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion
the absent spouse and the nature and extent of the inquiries made by between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or
present spouse. suppressed (italics ours).
"In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be
Fallo: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment."
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 73749 It can be argued that since the lower court dismissed the petition, the evil
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  Consequently, the Regional Trial Court of sought to be prevented (i.e., dissolution of the marriage) did not come
Catbalogan, Samar, Branch 27, isORDERED to DISMISS the respondent’s about, hence, the lack of participation of the State was cured. Not so. The
petition. task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution requires
vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. The
protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense
of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well. 
Sin vs. Sin
G.R No. 137590 Fallo:
March 26, 2001 WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the appealed decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51304, promulgated on April 30,
Pardo, J: 1998 and the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 158, Pasig City in
Civil Case No. 3190, dated June 16, 1995. Let the case be REMANDED to
Facts: the trial court for proper trial.
Florence and respondent Philipp T. Sin (hereafter "Philipp"), a Portugese
citizen, were married at St. Jude Catholic Parish in San Miguel, Manila.
Florence filed a complaint for "declaration of nullity of marriage" against
Philipp. Trial ensued and the parties presented their respective
documentary and testimonial evidence.
The trial court dismissed Florence's petition. Florence filed with the trial
court a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. After due proceedings,
the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision. Petitioner filed with the
Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals
denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not a declaration of nullity of marriage due to psychological
incapacity should be decreed.

Held:
No. The Family Code mandates:

6
7