ANAYA vs.
PALAROAN
G.R. No. L-27930, 26 November 1970
FACTS: Defendant Fernando Palaroan filed an action for annulment of the marriage on the ground that
his consent was obtained through force and intimidation. Judgment was rendered dismissing the
complaint,
upholding the validity of the marriage and granting Aurora Anayas (Aurora) counterclaim. Pending
negotiation of the counterclaim, Fernando divulged to Aurora that prior to their marriage he had premarital
relationship with a close relative of his. Aurora claimed that the nondivulgement to her of the
aforementioned pre-marital secret
on the part of Fernando definitely wrecked their marriage. Consequently, Aurora argued that the
marriage that was solemnized between them constituted fraud, in obtaining her consent within the
contemplation of No. 4 of Article 85 of the Civil Code. Aurora prayed for the annulment of the marriage
and for moral damages.
ISSUE: Whether the non-disclosure of pre-marital relationship with another is a ground for annulment of
the marriage.
HELD: No. Non-disclosure of a husbands 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 the article, providing that no other misrepresentation or deceit as to... chastity shall
give ground for an action to annul a marriage. While a woman may detest such nondisclosure of pre-
marital lewdness or feel having been thereby cheated into giving her consent to the marriage,
nevertheless the law does not assuage her grief after her consent was solemnly given, for upon marriage
she entered into an institution in which society, and not herself alone, is interested.
GR No 4264 May 31, 1940
SARAO vs GUEVARRA
FACTS: Sarao and Guevarra got married in 1932. In the afternoon, plaintiff tried to have carnal knowledge
with defendant but he was asked to wait for the evening. That night, he proceeded but though he found
the orifice of the defendant sufficiently large for his organ, she complained of pains in her private parts.
He also noticed that something was oozing therefrom with an offensive smell. Upon the advice of a
physician, defendant submitted to a operation as she had a tumor which infected her uterus and ovaries.
With the consent of plaintiff, her uterus and ovaries were removed thereby making her incapable to
procreate but not to copulate. Plaintiff now comes before the courts to have his marriage annulled on the
ground in impotency.
ISSUE: May the marriage be annulled on the ground of incompetency?
HELD: No. US law generally held that the meaning of impotency is not the ability to procreate but the
inability to copulate. It is thus a defect of copulation and not of reproduction. Barrenness will not invalidate
the marriage.
In this case, defendant is not impotent. The operation made her sterile but by no means made her unfit
for sexual intercourse. It was due to plaintiffs own voluntary desistance, memory of first unpleasant
experience, that made him give up the idea of again having carnal knowledge with her even after she
had already been rid of her disease.
Jones vs. Hortiguela
G.R. No. L-43701, March 6, 1937
Concepcion, J.
FACTS:
Felix, 2nd husband of the deceased Marciana, was appointed administrator of the estate of Marciana.
Felix and Angelita Jones, daughter of Marciana from her first husband were declared only heirs. Felix
fixed the partition of the intestate estate wherein he adjudicated to himself a part of the estate in payment
of his share of the conjugal properties and his usufructuary right and the remaining part to angelita
represented by her guardian Paz. Angelita now prays for the reopening of the proceedings questioning
the validity of the marriage of her mother and Felix and if there was in fact a valid marriage he is not
entitled to share in usufruct of onethird of the inheritance and that during the proceedings she was a
minor and didnt have counsel. She wants new partition of the properties.
CFI: denied the reappointment of heirs to be her only and ordering of new partition and final account of
estate
HELD:
Reverse, court lost its jurisdiction in handling the appeal with regards to the above mentioned prayers of
Angelita because there was no appeal ever taken therefrom therefore the court could not resume it.
Although, it was proven that the 2nd marriage of Marciana with Felix is valid since the marriage took
place 9 years after the disappearance of the first husband of marciana.
FACTS:
- Dec 1914 Marciana Escano married Arthur Jomes. On 1918 he left and never came back
- Oct 1919 Escano filed to declare him an absentee, granted under art 186 of CC, order was published
in OG and El Ideal
- May 6, 1927 Escano married Hortiguela
- May 9, 1932 Escano died leaving Hortiguela as judicial administrator of her entire estate. Only he and
Angelita Jones, daughter from first marriage were her
heirs, Represented by Paz Corominas since she was a minor
- May 3, 1934 declared that she was the only heir and her husband should be made administrator of
estate, Marriage between Escano and Hortiguela was null and void, was a minor then and had been
assisted by Hortiguelas same lawyers thus her rights were impaired.
ISSUE: WON Escano and Hortiguelas marriage was valid.
HELD: YES
- Rules on judicially declaring a person as absentee are different from estate and marriage -Estate need
to declare someone as absent for precautions for administration of estate of absentee
-Not necessary in marriage
-Only need to be absent for 7 years which he was for 9 years before 2nd marriage was made.
-Recognized Hortiguela as her step-father
RESULT: hortiguela has right to be administrator and heir to part of estate.
