SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:

Persons Effect of force, intimidation and 27 Aug 2018 Alrick and Tristan
undue influence
CASE NAME: Villanueva v CA, G.R. No. 132955
PONENTE: REGALADO, J. Case Date: October 27, 2006
Case Summary:
On April 13, 1988, petitioner Orlando Villanueva and respondent Villanueva got married in
Palawan. 4 years later, Orlando filed a petition for annulment of his marriage alleging threats
of violence and duress forced him into marrying Lilia. The trial court dismissed the case and
the CA affirmed the dismissal. The SC affirmed the CA’s decision, finding that petitioner freely
and voluntarily married private respondent and that no threats or intimidation, duress or
violence compelled him to do so.
Rule of Law/Doctrine:
Threats and intimidation must be compelling enough that a person’s apprehension of
danger to his person is so overwhelming as to deprive him of the will to enter voluntarily to a
contract of marriage.

Detailed Facts:
o On April 13, 1988, petitioner Orlando Villanueva and private respondent Lilia Canalita-
Villanueva got married in Puerto Princesa, Palawan.
o On November 17, 1992, Orlando filed with the trial court a petition for annulment of his
marriage alleging that threats of violence and duress forced him into marrying Lilia, who
was already pregnant.
o He cited several incidents that created on his mind a reasonable and well-grounded fear
of an imminent and grave danger to his life and safety.
o Harassing phone calls from the appellee and strangers as well as the
o Unwanted visits by three men at the premises of the University of the East after his
classes thereat
o Threatening presence of a certain Ka Celso, a supposed member of the NPA whom
appellant claimed to have been hired by appellee and who accompanied him in
going to her home province of Palawan to marry her.
o He further claims that:
o He did not get her pregnant prior to the marriage
o He never cohabited with her after the marriage
o He later learned that private respondent's child died during delivery on August 29,
1988.
o Lilia, in her answer with compulsory counterclaim, prayed for the dismissal of the petition,
arguing that:
o Petitioner freely and voluntarily married her.
o Petitioner stayed with her in Palawan for almost a month after their marriage.
o Petitioner wrote letters to her after he returned to Manila, during which private
respondent visited him personally.
o Petitioner knew about the progress of her pregnancy, which ended in their son
being born prematurely.
o The annulment suit was filed solely in the hope that a favorable judgment thereon
would bolster Orlando’s defense in his criminal case for bigamy which was then
already pending against him.
o Lilia also prayed for the payment of moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and
 costs.
o On January 12, 1996, the trial court dismissed the case, ordering Orlando to pay the Lilia
moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of
P50,000.00, and attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00, plus the costs of suit.
o CA affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the petition and the award of attorney’s fees and
costs, but reduced the award of moral and exemplary damages to P50,000.00 and
P25,000.00, respectively.
o Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA which was denied, hence, this
instant petition.
Issue:
W/N the Orlando and Lilia’s marriage may be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent
through threats of violence and duress
Holding:
The SC affirmed the findings of the CA that petitioner freely and voluntarily married private
respondent and that no threats or intimidation, duress or violence compelled him to do so.

The SC was not convinced that appellant’s apprehension of danger to his person is so
overwhelming as to deprive him of the will to enter voluntarily to a contract of marriage. At
the time he was allegedly being harassed, appellant worked as a security guard in a bank.
Given his employment at that time, it is reasonable to assume that appellant knew the
rudiments of self-defense, or, at the very least, the proper way to keep himself out of harm’s
way. The SC was even doubtful if threats were indeed made to bear upon appellant, what
with the fact that he never sought the assistance of the security personnel of his school nor
the police regarding the activities of those who were threatening him. And neither did he
inform the judge about his predicament prior to solemnizing their marriage.
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the CA affirming with
modification the Decision of the RTC of Valenzuela dismissing petitioner’s petition for the
annulment of his marriage with private respondent, is AFFIRMED. However, the award of
moral and exemplary damages is DELETED for lack of basis.
Relevant Provisions
NCC Art. 1335. There is violence when in order to wrest consent, serious or irresistible force is employed.

There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear
of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse,
descendants or ascendants, to give his consent.

To determine the degree of intimidation, the age, sex and condition of the person shall be borne in mind.

A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not vitiate
consent.

NCC Art. 1336. Violence or intimidation shall annul the obligation, although it may have been employed by a
third person who did not take part in the contract.

NCC Art. 1337. There is undue influence when a person takes improper advantage of his power over the will of
another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice. The following circumstances shall be
considered: the confidential, family, spiritual and other relations between the parties, or the fact that the
person alleged to have been unduly influenced was suffering from mental weakness, or was ignorant or in
financial distress.
Art. 45. 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 force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the
same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband
and wife;