EIGENMANN V GUERRA

5 CA Rep. 836 II May 11, 1964 II Agustin

SUBJECT: Eduardo Eigenman action for annulment of marriage to Maryden Guerra.
FACTS:
1. Eigenman wants an annulment of his marriage to Maryden for the ff. reasons:
a. Age – He was only 16 – 20 y.o. at the time of marriage, and there was no consent from his mother, Maria de Mesa.
b. Forced – His own consent the marriage was obtained via threat, intimidation, and force by Froilan Guerra (Maryden’s
dad).
c. Invalid license – marriage license was obtained from a councilor of Quezon City, who is not authorized to administer
oaths; hence an invalid marriage license.
2. Guerra made the ff. counterclaims:
a. False age– Eigenman represented himself to be over 21 y.o.
b. Not forced – his mother was present during the marriage ceremony, and impliedly gave consent to marriage
c. No excuse – Eigenman should not excuse himself from marital obligations, to the prejudice of Maryden and detriment of
public interest; marriage as inviolable social institution.
3. Background
a. They met each other at Clover Theater, Manila as performers; decided to marry.
b. Feb 17, 1932. Filed applications for license with Local Civil Registrar, Quezon City. Eigenman indicates he is 25 years, 8
months old, Bday.
c. Nov 3, 1957. Parents of parties discussed marriage at Maryden’s house.
d. Nov 5, 1957. Marriage by Judge Prudencio Encomienda, license 358036.
e. They lived a week in M’s house, transferred to E’s house for 3-4 mos.
4. Lower Court dismissed the action; hence this appeal.
ISSUES:
1. WON a marriage in which one party is older than 16 but younger than 20 years old is valid.
2. WON the consent to a marriage by a parent or guardian must be in writing and under oath to make such marriage valid.
RATIO:
1. Re. age: E falsely represented his age, making defendants believe that he is of age to marry without consent
a. He is now prevented by estoppel in trying to prove otherwise. (Art 1431 CC: through estoppel, an admission or
representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the
person relying thereon.
b. If Court allows him to, it would be in bad faith and disregard of rules on fair play and honest dealing.
2. Re. threat: court finds no reasonable and well-grounded fear of imminent and grave evil upon appellant’s person or property.
a. Father said: Balia ko’y lumiligaw ka sa aking anak. Pag niloko mo iyan, mag-ingat ka.
b. Above is expected from concerned parents.
3. Re. license. The law declared null and void ab initio marriages that are WITHOUT license, AT ALL.
a. Licensed marriages are not invalidated by wrongfully obtained licenses, including lack of authority of subscribing officer.
b. Local civil registrar and solemnizing officer are not even required to investigate marriage license.
4. Re. consent:
a. Article 61 CC: Males under 20 years old and females less than 18 years old shall exhibit to the local registrar the consent
to their marriage by their father, mother, or guardian, or persons having legal charge over them. Such consent shall be in
writing under oath.
i. Article 61 pertains only to issuance of marriage license; not needed for validity of marriage solemnized under
license.
ii. Court considers licensed marriages valid, even though license, which was issued by competent official, was
improperly obtained or defective (in this case, defective because of false representation of age).
b. Article 85 CC. Marriage may be annulled for the ff: Party who seeks annulment was 16 – 20 years old (male) or 14 – 18
years old (female); that marriage is solemnized without consent of parent, guardian, etc.; unless, after attaining proper
age, party freely cohabits with other as husband and wife.
i. Article 85 declares as voidable marriage those that are solemnized without consent of the parent, guardian, or
person… authority.
ii. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that consent may be given in any form, including impliedly.
5. There is so merit on the contention that trial court erred in holding that the mere presence of appellant’s mother at time of marriage
ceremony was sufficient parental consent.
RULING:
Court a quo’s decision affirmed.