GR L 12900; (March, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. and Date: G.R. No. L-12900; March 27, 1918
Case Title: JULIAN SIMAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SATURNINO LEUS and SIMEON LEUS, defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
Julian Siman filed an action against Saturnino Leus and Simeon Leus (father and son) seeking the annulment of the marriage between his daughter, Simeona Siman (18 years of age), and Simeon Leus. The complaint alleged that the marriage was contracted through “fraud, force, threats, and intimidation.” Julian Siman, as the father of the bride, instituted the suit in his own name to annul the marriage and recover damages.
ISSUE:
Whether Julian Siman, as the father of the minor bride, has the legal capacity or right of action to sue for the annulment of his daughter’s marriage on the grounds of fraud, force, threats, and intimidation.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that Julian Siman had no right of action to annul his daughter’s marriage. The Court ruled:
1. A parent is not the legal representative of a child before the courts for this purpose. The right of a parent to sue for annulment is permitted only when the child was under the age of legal consent and the marriage was contracted without parental consent. Here, Simeona Siman was 18 years old, which was over the age of legal consent, making parental consent to the marriage unnecessary.
2. The causes for annulment alleged (fraud, force, etc.) are grounds enumerated under the Marriage Law, which expressly requires that the action “must be brought by the injured party.” The injured party is the minor bride, Simeona Siman, not her father.
3. Upon marriage, even if a minor, Simeona Siman became emancipated. As an emancipated minor, she does not need her father’s aid to bring suit, nor does she require a guardian ad litem to institute the action. It is solely her prerogative to elect whether to seek annulment.
4. Allowing a parent to invalidate a marriage without the consent or knowledge of the married minor would be subversive to social order, sound policy, and good morals.
The complaint was dismissed for lack of cause of action in favor of the plaintiff-father.
This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.