Villanueva vs.

CA
October 27, 2006
Ponente: J. Ynares-Santiago
Topic: Consent freely given by both spouses; Effect of force, intimidation,
and undue influence
Facts:
1. Orlando and Lilia got married on April 13, 1988 in Palawan. On Nov. 17, 1992,
Orlando filed for annulment claiming that he was threatened and forced
(persistent phone calls, threats, men following him) into marrying Lilia (who
was pregnant at date of marriage), that he did not get her pregnant before the
marriage, and that he never cohabited with her. He also said that he later
learned that Lilias child died during delivery on August 29, 1988.
2. Lilia denies forcing Orlando to marry her and that the he stayed with her in
Palawan for almost a month after marriage. She also says that Orlando wrote
to her frequently when he already went back to Manila, and that she visited
him on some occasions and he knew of the progress of her pregnancy.
3. Lower court denied petition for annulment and awarded 170k in damages to
Lilia.
4. CA affirmed this decision but lowered damages to 90k.
Art. 2234, NCC: While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the
plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before
the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be
awarded. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no proof of loss is
necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before the
court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages,
the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory
damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages.

Issues: Whether or not the marriage may be annulled on the ground of forced
consent
- Whether or not petitioner is liable for damages
Decision: Petition partly granted, annulment denied. Damages deleted from decision
for lack of cause.
Held
Orlando
freely
and
married Lilia

voluntarily

Ratio
It was only after 4 years and 8 months
after the marriage when Orlando sought
annulment when he was already accused
of bigamy in another case.
He was a bank security guard
assumably knows self-defense.

and

He
says
that
he
couldnt
have
impregnated Lilia because he did not
have an erection but admitted having sex
with her before marriage. He did not
attribute the pregnancy to any other
man.
Letters from Orlando addressed to Lilia

professing love and concern. At first he

admitted 7 out of 13 letters but later said
that he was threatened to admitting it
was from him. Claim of threat not
believable.

No cause for awarding damages

Lack of cohabitation in itself not ground

for annulment.
No testimony from Lilia stating her
alleged moral damage. Mere allegations
does not suffice, they must be
substantiated with proof.