Buccat vs.

Mangonon de Buccat
G.R. No. 47101 ll Apr. 25, 1941
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio.
Facts:
Godofredo Buccat and Luida Mangonon de Buccat met in March 1938, became engaged in September, and got married
in Nov 26.
On Feb 23, 1939 (89 days after getting married) Luida, who was 9 months pregnant, gave birth to a son. After knowing
this, Godofredo left Luida and never returned to married life with her.
On March 23, 1939, he filed for an annulment of their marriage on the grounds that when he agreed to married Luida,
she assured him that she was a virgin.
The Lower court decided in favor of Luida.
Issue:
Should the annulment for Godofredo Buccats marriage be granted on the grounds that Luida concealed her pregnancy
before the marriage?
Held:
No. Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a marriage, a sacred institution in which the State is
interested and where society rests.
In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was concealment of pregnancy constituting fraud as a ground
forannulment. It was unlikely that Godofredo, a first-year law student, did not suspect anything about Luidas condition
considering that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy (highly developed physical manifestation, ie. enlarged
stomach ) when they got married.
Decision:
SC affirmed the lower courts decision. Costs to plaintiff-appellant

FACTS
The plaintiff met the defendant in March 1938. After several dates, they were engaged on 19 September of that year.
On 26 November the same year, the plaintiff married the defendant in the Catholic Cathedral of the City of Baguio.
After living together as husband and wife for eighty-nine days, the defendant gave birth to a child of nine months, on
February 23, 1939. Because of this the plaintiff abandoned the defendant and did not return to their life as husband
and wife. The plaintiff then requests the annulment of the marriage he had with the defendant on the grounds that he
consented to the marriage because the defendant had assured him that she was virgin.
ISSUES
WON annulment can proceed given plaintiffs claim that he had been defrauded by his wife whom he thought was a
virgin.
RULING
The judgment appealed from is deemed to be in accordance with law, and is thus affirmed.
RATIO DECIDENDI

NO. The plaintiffs allegation that he had not suspected the pregnancy of the defendant when he married her is highly
improbable, given her obvious advanced pregnancy. Therefore it is unnecessary to consider the appellants allegation
of fraud. He also argued that it is not uncommon to find people with big stomachs, but we find this argument too
puerile to even consider, especially since the appellant is a freshman in law school. Marriage is a most sacred
institution: it is the cement, the very foundation, on which society rests. For annulment to proceed, it is entirely
necessary that the pieces of evidence provided be clear and reliable. No such evidence can be found in this case.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
GR No. 47101 April 25, 1941
GODOFREDO BUCCAT,
plaintiff-appellant, vs..
Luida MANGONON OF BUCCAT,
defendant-appellee.
D. Feliciano Leviste, D. Tomas P. Panganiban and Doa Sotera N. Megia inrepresentation of
appellant.Doa Luida Mangonon of Buccat in their own representation.

HORRILLENO, J .:
This issue has been raised to this superiority by the Court of First Instance of Baguio, as only raises a pure
question of law. The March 20, 1939 the plaintiff inico the present case, in which the defendant is not arraigned,
despite having been duly summoned. So, allowed the plaintiff to present evidence, the lower court ruling on the
matter in favor of the defendant. Hence this appeal. The applicant seeks the annulment of her marriage with
the defendant been Luida Buccat Mangonon of the November 26, 1938 in Baguio City on the grounds that, in
consenting to the marriage, he did so because the defendant had assured him that she was virgin. From the
decision of the lower court reveals the following facts:
The plaintiff met the defendant in March 1938. After several interviews, both were committed on 19 September
of the same year. On 26 November the same year, the plaintiff married the defendant in the Catholic cathedral
Baguio City. Desoues of living maritally for about eighty-nine days, the defendant gave birth to a child of nine
months, the February 23, 1939. As a result of this event, the defendant abandoned plaintiff and did not return to
do her marital life. We do not see any reason to overturn the original ruling. Indeed, it is improbable the plaintiff
and appellant's allegation that the suspect had not even gravido status of the defendant, being this, as is
proved, very advanced in pregnant condition. So it is not necessary to estimate the fraud who speaks the
appellant. I argued this in the sense that countries not rare to find people of the abdomen developed, it seems
childish to merit our consideration, the more so as the plaintiff was freshman of law. Marriage is a very sacred
institution: is the foundation upon which society rests. To cancel, are necessary to clear and irrefutable evidence.
In this case no such evidence exists. Finding the original ruling consistent with the law, should be confirmed, as it
hereby confirm it, in its entirety, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avancea, Pres, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, MM., are satisfied.