ANAYA vs. PALAROAN

Facts: plaintiff Aurora and defendant Fernando

were married on 4 December 1953 defendant 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

judgment was rendered therein on 23 September 1959 dismissing the complaint of Fernando

court granted Aurora’s counterclaim Fernando had divulged to Aurora that

several months prior to their marriage he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his

the Plaintiff herein from going thru the marriage that was solemnized between them constituted 'FRAUD', in obtaining her consent

Defendant Fernando, in his answer, denied the allegation

He set up the defenses of lack of cause of action and estoppels

He counterclaimed for damages for the malicious filing of the suit

Plaintiff Aurora filed a reply with answer to the counterclaim, wherein she alleged:

o he paid court to her, and pretended to shower her with love and affection not because he really felt so but because she merely happened to be the first girl available to marry so he could evade marrying the close relative of his

o he secretly intended from the very beginning not to perform the marital duties and obligations

o defendant Fernando carried on a courtship with a third girl with whom, after gaining the latter's love cohabited and had several children during the whole range of nine years

Issue: whether or not the non-disclosure to a wife

by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of marriage

Held: No. Aurora's allegation of the fraud was

legally insufficient to invalidate her marriage.

The court a quo required plaintiff to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff Aurora submitted a memorandum in compliance therewith, but the court found it inadequate and thereby issued an order, dated 7 October 1966, for the dismissal of the complaint; it also denied reconsideration.

Non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment

On the merits of this second fraud charge, it is enough to point out that any secret intention on the husband's part not to perform his marital duties must have been discovered by the wife soon after the marriage: hence her action for annulment based on that fraud should have been brought within four years after the marriage