ANAYA vs.

PALAROAN
G.R. No. L-27930
November 26, 1970

Ponente: REYES, J.B.L., J.:

FACTS:

Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married in December 4, 1953. Fernando filed an action for annulment of the marriage on 7
January 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation. The complaint was dismissed and the
validity of the marriage was upheld and granting Aurora’s counterclaim.

While the amount of counterclaim was being negotiated, Fernando divulged to Aurora that several months prior to their marriage, he
had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. According to her, the non-divulgement to her of such pre-marital secret
constituted fraud in obtaining her consent. She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando on such ground and asked for
moral damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the husband’s concealment to a wife of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of
marriage.

HELD:

The concealment of a husband’s pre-marital relationship with another woman was not one of those enumerated that would constitute
fraud as ground for annulment (misrepresentation as to identity, non-disclosure of a previous conviction, and concealment of
pregnancy), and it is further excluded by the last paragraph providing that “no other misrepresentation or deceit as to.. chastity” shall
give ground for an action to annul a marriage. Hence, the case at bar does not constitute fraud and therefore would not warrant an
annulment of marriage.

Note that out of all the causes of nullity enumerated in Article 85, fraud is the only one given special treatment in a subsequent
article within the chapter on void and voidable marriages. If its intention were otherwise, Congress would have stopped at Article 85,
for, anyway, fraud in general is already mentioned therein as a cause for annulment. But Article 86 was also enacted, expressly and
specifically dealing with "fraud referred to in number 4 of the preceding article," and proceeds by enumerating the specific frauds
making it clear that Congress intended to exclude all other frauds or deceits.
Decision was rendered on November 26, 1970. The Court’s reference is Article 85, Compare with the Family Code:
No. 4, of the (Old) Civil Code, which provides: ART. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,

ART. 85. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the existing at the time of the marriage: xxx xxx xxx
time of the marriage:

xxx xxx xxx
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited
with the other as her husband or his wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely
cohabited with the other as husband or wife;
xxx xxx xxx

ART. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to
xxx xxx xxx in Number 3 of the preceding Article:

ART. 86. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in 1. (1)  Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the
number 4 of the preceding article: other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;
2. (2)  Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the
1. (1)  Misrepresentation as to the identity of one of the contracting parties; marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband;
2. (2)  Non-disclosure of the previous conviction of the other party of a crime 3. (3)  Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its
involving moral turpitude, and the penalty imposed was imprisonment for nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or
two years or more; 4. (4)  Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or
3. (3)  Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.
she was pregnant by a man other than her husband.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune or chastity shall chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the
constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. annulment of marriage.
Relevant Articles in the New Civil Code:
ARTICLE 1338. There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which,

without them, he would not have agreed to.

ARTICLE 1339. Failure to disclose facts, when there is a duty to reveal them, as when the parties are bound by confidential relations, constitutes fraud.

ARTICLE 1340. The usual exaggerations in trade, when the other party had an opportunity to know the facts, are not in themselves fraudulent.

ARTICLE 1341. A mere expression of an opinion does not signify fraud, unless made by an expert and the other party has relied on the former’s special knowledge.

ARTICLE 1342. Misrepresentation by a third person does not vitiate consent, unless such misrepresentation has created substantial mistake and the same is mutual.

ARTICLE 1343. Misrepresentation made in good faith is not fraudulent but may constitute error.
ARTICLE 1344. In order that fraud may make a contract voidable, it should be serious and should not have been employed by both contracting parties. Incidental fraud
only obliges the person employing it to pay damages.