ORLANDO VILLANUEVA, petitioner,
1 Petitioner freely and voluntarily married her
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LILIA CANALITA-VILLANUEVA,
respondents
FC Art. 45 (4): A marriage may be annulled for any of the ff. causes,
existing at the time of the marriage, that the consent of either party
was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the
same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely
cohabited with the other as husband and wife.*NCC 1335 - 1337
PONENTE: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J
DOCTRINE: lack of cohabitation per se, is not a ground to annul a
marriage. In order to invoke FC 45 (4); force, threat and or intimidation
must be proven in court.
RULING FORMAT: RTC- dismissed the case ordering moral and
exemplary damages for the defendant, CA- affirmed RTCs dismissal,
denies the appeal hence the petition.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner and the private respondent got married on April 13,
1998 in Palawan.
2. In 1992, Orlando filed a petition for annulment of their
marriage on the ground that: threats of violence and duress
forced him to marry the respondent. (unwanted phone calls,
threat from alleged NPA, ka Celso) He also contends that;
2.1 Lilia (R) was already pregnant prior to their
marriage and he was not the father
2.2 He never cohabitated with her after their
marriage
2.3 He found out later that the baby dies during
delivery
3. Lilias side, they prayed for the dismissal of the said petition
3.
3.2 P. stayed with her in Palawan for 1 month
3.3 P. wrote letters to her and knew about the
progress of pregnancy all this time.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the marriage of Orlando ( petitioner) and Lilia (private
respondent) may be annulled on the ground of vitiated
consent?
2. W/N petitioner should be liable for moral and exemplary
damages?
HELD: Petition partly granted.
1. No. it affirms the finding of the CA; (Pet.) freely and voluntarily
married the (Resp.) and NO threats of intimidation, duress or
violence compelled him to marry the (Resp.) lack of
cohabitation not a ground to annul marriage since the
appellant failed to justify his failure to cohabit.
*there is a pending bigamy case against the (pet.) it took Orlando
4yrs 8mos. To file annulment the prolonged inaction evidently
finds that his annulment suit will be used for his acquittal.
*Orlando failed to provide proof that he was tricked into marriage.
He admitted he had sexual intercourse with her and failed to
attribute the (resp.) pregnancy to other man. The letters all
contained love and affection for the pregnant woman.
2. NO private respondent is entitled to attorneys fee but court
deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages for lack of
legal basis.