Aquino v. Delizo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Fernando Aquino filed a complaint for annulment of his marriage with respondent Conchita Delizo, alleging that respondent concealed her pregnancy by another man at the time of their marriage on December 27, 1954. Respondent gave birth to a child in April 1955, approximately four months after the marriage. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the complaint, holding that concealment of pregnancy does not constitute fraud sufficient to annul a marriage and noting the absence of a birth certificate proving the child was born within 180 days of the marriage. A subsequent petition to reopen the case for additional evidence (birth and delivery certificates) was denied due to alleged excusable negligence. The Petition: On appeal, the Court of Appeals acknowledged excusable neglect in the plaintiff's inability to present the birth certificate but affirmed the dismissal. The appellate court found it not impossible for the child to be theirs and considered the plaintiff's claim of not noticing the pregnancy unbelievable. The plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial, attaching affidavits from respondent and her brother-in-law (Cesar Aquino) admitting the respondent's pregnancy by Cesar Aquino at the time of marriage and the concealment of this fact. The Court of Appeals denied this motion, stating it did not believe the veracity of the annexes. The present petition for certiorari seeks to review this denial.
Issue(s)
Whether the concealment of pregnancy by the wife at the time of marriage constitutes fraud sufficient to annul the marriage. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for new trial despite the submission of affidavits admitting fraud and concealment. Whether the plaintiff's failure to notice or suspect the respondent's pregnancy, given her 'naturally plump' physique and the stage of pregnancy, was unbelievable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the court of origin for a new trial. The Court found that the dismissal of the complaint could not be sustained and that justice would be better served by ordering a new trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of concealment of pregnancy as fraud: The Court held that under the new Civil Code, concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment of marriage (Art. 85, par. (4) in relation to Art. 86, par. (3)). The Court distinguished the present case from Buccat vs. Buccat, where the pregnancy was in an advanced stage (7th month) and thus readily apparent. In this case, the respondent was allegedly only more than four months pregnant, a stage where pregnancy might not be readily apparent, especially for a woman described as 'naturally plump.' The Court cited medical authorities indicating that pregnancy is often not noticeable until the sixth month, and even physicians have limited diagnostic certainty at five months. On the issue of the plaintiff's failure to notice the pregnancy: The Court found the appellate court's conclusion that the plaintiff's claim of not suspecting the pregnancy was unbelievable to be inapplicable. Given the respondent's alleged 'naturally plump' physique and the relatively early stage of pregnancy (over four months), it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to fail to notice or suspect it, particularly if the respondent attempted to conceal her condition. The Court noted that even physicians have limited diagnostic accuracy at this stage. On the issue of denying the motion for new trial: The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for new trial. The evidence sought to be introduced, particularly the affidavits of the respondent and Cesar Aquino admitting the pregnancy by Cesar Aquino and the concealment thereof, taken together with the existing evidence, would be sufficient to sustain the fraud alleged by the plaintiff. The failure of the defendant to file an answer to the motion for reconsideration should not have been taken as evidence of collusion, especially since a provincial fiscal was appointed to prevent such collusion. The veracity of the contents of the motion and its annexes could only be determined after hearing evidence.
Main Doctrine
Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment of marriage under the Civil Code. The denial of a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, particularly affidavits admitting fraud and concealment, may be an error if such evidence, taken with existing evidence, would be sufficient to sustain the alleged fraud.