Facts:
Orlando filed with the trial court a petition for annulment of his marriage with Lilia alleging that threats of violence and duress forced him into marrying her who was already pregnant. 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. Orlando also alleged that he never cohabited with Lilia after the marriage.
Lilia prayed for the dismissal of the petition, arguing that petitioner freely and voluntarily married her; that petitioner stayed with her in Palawan for almost a month after their marriage; that petitioner wrote letters to her after he returned to Manila, during which private respondent visited him personally; and that petitioner knew about the progress of her pregnancy, which ended in their son being born prematurely.
The trial court dismissed the petition which was affirmed by the CA.
Orlando filed with the trial court a petition for annulment of his marriage with Lilia alleging that threats of violence and duress forced him into marrying her who was already pregnant. 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. Orlando also alleged that he never cohabited with Lilia after the marriage.
Lilia prayed for the dismissal of the petition, arguing that petitioner freely and voluntarily married her; that petitioner stayed with her in Palawan for almost a month after their marriage; that petitioner wrote letters to her after he returned to Manila, during which private respondent visited him personally; and that petitioner knew about the progress of her pregnancy, which ended in their son being born prematurely.
The trial court dismissed the petition which was affirmed by the CA.
Issues:
1. May the subject marriage be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent?
2. Should the marriage be annulled due to the absence of cohabitation between the parties?
2. Should the marriage be annulled due to the absence of cohabitation between the parties?
Held:
1. No. 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.
2. No. Appellant cannot claim that his marriage should be annulled due to the absence of cohabitation between him and his wife. Lack of cohabitation is, per se, not a ground to annul a marriage. Otherwise, the validity of a marriage will depend upon the will of the spouses who can terminate the marital union by refusing to cohabitate. The failure to cohabit becomes relevant only if it arises as a result of the perpetration of any of the grounds for annulling the marriage, such as lack of parental consent, insanity, fraud, intimidation, or undue influence x x x. Since the appellant failed to justify his failure to cohabit with the appellee on any of those grounds, the validity of his marriage must be upheld. (Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132955, October 27, 2006)
2. No. Appellant cannot claim that his marriage should be annulled due to the absence of cohabitation between him and his wife. Lack of cohabitation is, per se, not a ground to annul a marriage. Otherwise, the validity of a marriage will depend upon the will of the spouses who can terminate the marital union by refusing to cohabitate. The failure to cohabit becomes relevant only if it arises as a result of the perpetration of any of the grounds for annulling the marriage, such as lack of parental consent, insanity, fraud, intimidation, or undue influence x x x. Since the appellant failed to justify his failure to cohabit with the appellee on any of those grounds, the validity of his marriage must be upheld. (Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132955, October 27, 2006)
0 Comments
Post a Comment