G.R. No. L-27930 November 26, 1970
AURORA A. ANAYA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FERNANDO O. PALAROAN, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Aurora A. Anaya and defendant-appellee Fernando O. Palaroan were married on December 4, 1953. On January 7, 1954, Fernando filed an action for annulment of the marriage (Civil Case No. 21589) on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation. On September 23, 1959, the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed Fernando’s complaint, upheld the validity of the marriage, and granted Aurora’s counterclaim. Subsequently, Aurora filed the present complaint for annulment of marriage (Civil Case No. E-00431) before the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court of Manila. She alleged that during negotiations to settle the judgment amount from the prior case, Fernando divulged that several months prior to their marriage he had a pre-marital relationship with a close relative. She claimed this “non-divulgement” constituted fraud in obtaining her consent under Article 85(4) of the Civil Code. In his answer, Fernando denied the allegation and raised defenses of lack of cause of action and estoppel. In her reply, Aurora added new allegations that Fernando courted her only to evade marrying the close relative, and that he secretly intended from the beginning not to perform his marital duties or live with her. After reviewing the records, the lower court, motu proprio, found the allegation of fraud legally insufficient and ordered Aurora to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed. Upon finding her compliance inadequate, the court dismissed the complaint. Aurora appealed.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the non-disclosure by a husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman constitutes fraud as a ground for annulment of marriage under the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court held that non-disclosure of a pre-marital relationship is not a ground for annulment. Fraud as a vice of consent under Article 85(4) is limited exclusively to the specific circumstances enumerated in Article 86 of the Civil Code: (1) misrepresentation as to identity; (2) non-disclosure of a previous conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude with imprisonment of two years or more; and (3) concealment by the wife of pregnancy by another man at the time of marriage. Article 86 expressly states that no other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune, or chastity shall constitute such fraud. The non-disclosure alleged by Aurora is excluded by this provision. Regarding the new allegations in her reply (pretended love and secret intention not to perform marital duties), the Court ruled these constituted a new and additional cause of action improperly alleged in a reply. On the merits, even if properly pleaded, such fraud, if discovered soon after the marriage, would have prescribed, as the action for annulment based on it must be brought within four years from the marriage celebrated in December 1953, and was only pleaded in 1966.