ANAYA v.

PALAROAN
FACTS:
Respondent revealed to petitioner that he had a pre-marital relationship with a relative several
months prior to their wedding. Petitioner fled a case for annulment on the ground of fraud.
ISSUE/HELD:
W/N the non-disclosure of a pre-marital relationship is a ground for annulment NO.
Petitioner Held
Under rt. !"# No. $# %ivil %ode:
&R'. !". marriage ma( )e annulled for an(
of the following causes# e*isting at the time of
the marriage:
*** *** ***
+$, 'hat the consent of either part( was
o)tained )( fraud# unless such part(
afterwards# with full -nowledge of the facts
constituting the fraud# freel( coha)ited with
the other as her hus)and or his wife# as the
case ma( )e./
Under rt. !0# %ivil %ode:
&R'. !0. n( of the following circumstances
shall constitute fraud referred to in num)er $
of the preceding article:
+1, 2isrepresentation as to the identit( of one
of the contracting parties.
+3, Non-disclosure of the previous conviction
of the other part( of a crime involving moral
turpitude# and the penalt( imposed was
imprisonment for two (ears or more.
+4, %oncealment )( the wife of the fact that at
the time of the marriage# she was pregnant )(
a man other than her hus)and.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to
character# ran-# fortune or chastit( shall
constitute such fraud as will give grounds for
action for the annulment of marriage./
Non-disclosure of the pre-marital relationship
constitutes fraud.
5t is not listed under rt. !0# %% as a
circumstance constituting fraud. 67usdem
generis at wor-. 'he last paragraph after the
enumeration stresses that.
'he law does not assuage her grief after her
consent was solemnl( given# for upon
marriage she entered into an institution in
which societ(# and not herself alone# is
interested.