Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
27 December 1954: Aquino and Delizo got married
Delizo allegedly concealed from Aquino that she was pregnant with another man’s child
26 April 1955: Delizo gave birth to the child
In her answer, Delizo claimed the child was Aquino’s before they got married
o That makes her 4-5 months pregnant when they got married
17 March 1959: Aquino filed a motion praying the decision be reconsidered, or that the case be remanded to
the lower court for a new trial
Plaintiff attached the following documents
o Affidavit of Cesar Aquino (Plaintiff’s brother)
Defendant was living with Cesar at the time she and plaintiff met
Defendant had two more children with Cesar, aside from their firstborn, in common-
law relationship
Cesar admitted he was the father of the defendant’s first born, Catherine
Cesar admitted that he and respondent hid the pregnancy from the plaintiff at the
time of their marriage
o Affidavit of defendant Conchita Delizo
Admitted her pregnancy by Cesar Aquino
Admitted she hid her pregnancy from the petitioner when they got married
o Affidavit of Albert Powell
Stating he knew Cesar and respondent Delizo lived together before 27 December
1954, when she married petitioner
o Birth certificate of defendant’s first born, Catherine Bess Aquino (born 26 April 1955)
o Birth certificate of Carolle Ann Aquino, second child of defendant with Cesar
o Birth certificate of Chris Charibel Aquino, third child of defendant with Cesar
o Pictures of defendant showing her natural plumpness as early as 1952 to late November
1954, which does not show defendant’s four-month pregnancy
Aquino v. Delizo | G.R. No. L-15853 | July 27, 1960
6 August 1959: Court of Appeals denied the motion after Delizo and the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal,
who was representing the government, failed to file an answer to the motion for reconsideration
- Stated it "does not believe the veracity of the contents of the motion and its annexes"
Plaintiff bought the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari
ISSUE: WON the respondent’s concealment of her pregnancy by another man can be a ground for annulment
HELD: Dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint cannot be sustained, case is remanded to lower court for another
trial
RATIO:
- 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 ground for annulment of
marriage
NCC 85: A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts
constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as her husband or his wife, as the case may be
NCC 86: Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in number 4 of the preceding article:
(3) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband.
- In Buccat v. Buccat, another case which seeks annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud, the
defendant was already seven months pregnant when she married the plaintiff, hence cannot be
applied here
- Defendant Delizo was only more than four months pregnant when she married the plaintiff
- Court is not prepared to say her pregnancy was readily apparent, especially since she was "naturally
plump" or fat as alleged by plaintiff
- Plaintiff could hardly be expected to know, merely by looking, whether or not she was pregnant at
the time of their marriage more so because she must have attempted to conceal the true state of
affairs
- According to medical authorities:
o 5th month of pregnancy: enlargement of a woman’s abdomen is hardly noticeable, and if
noticeable, may be attributed to fat formation on the lower part of the abdomen
Physicians can claim 33% positive diagnosis of pregnancy
o 6th month of pregnancy: enlargement of abdomen becomes more general and apparent
Physicians can claim 50% positive diagnosis of pregnancy
- No support of the statement that plaintiff and defendant could have had sexual intercourse before
marriage, and therefore the child could be their own
- Evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial can be sufficient to sustain the fraud alleged by
plaintiff