Villanueva vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 132955 October 27, 2006

FACTS:
In April 1988, Orlando Villanueva married Lilia Canalita- Villanueva before a trial court judge in Puerto
Princesa. In November 1992, Orlando filed before the trial court a petition for annulment of his
marriage. He claimed that threats of violence and duress forced him to marry Lilia who was then
pregnant. Orlando anchored his prayer for the annulment of his marriage on the ground that he did
not freely consent to be married to Lilia. 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, to wit: the
harassing phone calls from Lilia and strangers as well as the unwanted visits by three men at the
premises of the University of the East after his classes thereat, and the threatening presence of a
certain Ka Celso, a supposed member of the New People’s Army whom appellant claimed to have been
hired by Lilia and who accompanied him in going to her home province of Palawan to marry her. On
the other hand Lilia denied Orlando’s allegations and she said that Orlando freely cohabited with her
after the marriage and she showed 14 letters that shows Orlando’s affection and care towards her.

ISSUE:
Whether the subject marriage may be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent under Article 45 of
the Family Code.

RULING:
No. The court ruled that vitiation of consent is not attendant in this case. Therefore, the petition for
annulment, which is anchored to his allegation that he did not freely give his consent, should be
dismissed.

Article 45(4) of the Family Code provides that a marriage may be annulled for any of the following
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

The SC ruled that Orlando’s allegation of fraud and intimidation is untenable. On its face, it is obvious
that Orlando is only seeking to annul his marriage with Lilia so as to have the pending appealed
bigamy case [filed against him by Lilia] to be dismissed.

On the merits of the case, Orlando’s allegation of fear was not concretely established. The Court is 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. It is not disputed that 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. For sure, it is 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. Fraud cannot be raised as a ground as well. His allegation that he never had an erection
during their sexual intercourse is incredible and is an outright lie. His counsel also conceded before the
lower court that his client had a sexual relationship with Lilia.