buccat v buccat docx

1
Buccat v Buccat Petitioners: Godofredo Buccat Respondent: Luida Mangonon de Buccat Appeal on the decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio FACTS: March 1938- Godofredo and Luida met. September 19, 1938 – The two became engaged. November 26, 1938 – The two got married in the Catholic Church of Baguio City February 23, 1939 - After living together for 89 days, Luida gave birth to a boy. Godofredo abandoned Luida and child. March 1939 – Godofredo filed for annulment of his marriage with Luida on the grounds that when he consented to marry her, she assured him that she was a virgin. ISSUE: WN the CFI was correct in denying Godofredo’s plea of annulment of his marriage on the ground that Luida concealed her pregnancy before the marriage. RESOLUTION: NO. The Court did not find any proof that Luida concealed her pregnancy at the time of marriage. She was already in an advance state of pregnancy and it was highly unlikely that Godofredo did not notice the telling signs of her pregnancy (e.g. enlargement of abdomen). Marriage is a sacred institution. In order to annul it, one must present clear proof of fraud. Decision of CFI affirmed.

Upload: dawn-bernabe

Post on 11-Dec-2015

219 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Buccat v Buccat docx

TRANSCRIPT

Buccat v Buccat

Petitioners: Godofredo Buccat

Respondent: Luida Mangonon de Buccat

Appeal on the decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio

FACTS:

March 1938- Godofredo and Luida met. September 19, 1938 – The two became engaged. November 26, 1938 – The two got married in the Catholic Church of Baguio City February 23, 1939 - After living together for 89 days, Luida gave birth to a boy. Godofredo abandoned Luida and child. March 1939 – Godofredo filed for annulment of his marriage with Luida on the grounds that

when he consented to marry her, she assured him that she was a virgin.

ISSUE:

WN the CFI was correct in denying Godofredo’s plea of annulment of his marriage on the ground that Luida concealed her pregnancy before the marriage.

RESOLUTION:

NO. The Court did not find any proof that Luida concealed her pregnancy at the time of marriage. She was already in an advance state of pregnancy and it was highly unlikely that Godofredo did not notice the telling signs of her pregnancy (e.g. enlargement of abdomen).

Marriage is a sacred institution. In order to annul it, one must present clear proof of fraud.

Decision of CFI affirmed.