Case: AURORA A. ANAYA vs. FERNANDO O. PALAROAN G.R. No.

L-27930 November 26, 1970

Ponente: REYES, J.B.L., J.:

FACTS: Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married in December 4, 1953. Fernando filed an action for annulment of the
marriage on 7 January 1954 (lampas lang ng isang buwan!) on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and
intimidation. The complaint was dismissed in 23 September 1959 and upheld the validity of the marriage and granting Auroras
counterclaim. While the amount of counterclaim was being negotiated, Fernando divulged to Aurora that several months prior to
their marriage, he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. According to her, the non-divulgement to her of such pre-
marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining her consent. She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando on such
ground and asked for moral damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the husbands concealment to a wife of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is a ground for
annulment of marriage.
HELD: The concealment of a husbands pre-marital relationship with another woman was not one of those enumerated that would
constitute fraud as ground for annulment (misrepresentation as to identity, non-disclosure of a previous conviction, and concealment
of pregnancy), and it is further excluded by the last paragraph providing that no other misrepresentation or deceit as to.. chastity
shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. Hence, the case at bar does not constitute fraud and therefore would not warrant
an annulment of marriage.
Note that out of all the causes of nullity enumerated in Article 85, fraud is the only one given special treatment in a subsequent
article within the chapter on void and voidable marriages. If its intention were otherwise, Congress would have stopped at Article 85,
for, anyway, fraud in general is already mentioned therein as a cause for annulment. But Article 86 was also enacted, expressly and
specifically dealing with "fraud referred to in number 4 of the preceding article," and proceeds by enumerating the specific frauds
making it clear that Congress intended to exclude all other frauds or deceits.
Decision was rendered on November 26, 1970. The Courts reference is Article Compare with the Family Code:
85, No. 4, of the (Old) Civil Code, which provides:
ART. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,
ART. 85. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at existing at the time of the marriage:
the time of the marriage:
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as
cohabited with the other as her husband or his wife; husband or wife;

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

ART. 86. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in ART. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud
number 4 of the preceding article: referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:

(1) Misrepresentation as to the identity of one of the contracting parties;
(2) Non-disclosure of the previous conviction of the other party of a crime
involving moral turpitude, and the penalty imposed was imprisonment for
two years or more;
(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.
(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the
other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the
marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband;
(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its
nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or
(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or
homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.

No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune or chastity No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank,
shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for
marriage. action for the annulment of marriage.

Relevant Articles in the New Civil Code:

ARTICLE 1338. There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which,
without them, he would not have agreed to.
ARTICLE 1339. Failure to disclose facts, when there is a duty to reveal them, as when the parties are bound by confidential relations, constitutes fraud.
ARTICLE 1340. The usual exaggerations in trade, when the other party had an opportunity to know the facts, are not in themselves fraudulent.
ARTICLE 1341. A mere expression of an opinion does not signify fraud, unless made by an expert and the other party has relied on the formers special knowledge.
ARTICLE 1342. Misrepresentation by a third person does not vitiate consent, unless such misrepresentation has created substantial mistake and the same is
mutual.
ARTICLE 1343. Misrepresentation made in good faith is not fraudulent but may constitute error.
ARTICLE 1344. In order that fraud may make a contract voidable, it should be serious and should not have been employed by both contracting parties.
Incidental fraud only obliges the person employing it to pay damages.