Scribd
Upload
243 views2 pages

Aquino vs. Delizo

This case involves a petition for annulment filed by Fernando Aquino against Conchita Delizo on the grounds that Delizo concealed her pregnancy by another man when they married. The trial court dismissed the case due to lack of evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that concealment of pregnancy is fraud and grounds for annulment under the Civil Code. It remanded the case for a new trial to allow Aquino to present additional evidence, including birth certificates, to prove Delizo's alleged fraud. The Supreme Court held that given Delizo's natural plumpness and the early stage of pregnancy, Aquino could not reasonably have known of the pregnancy without concealment.

Uploaded by

Al Rx
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
243 views2 pages

Aquino vs. Delizo

This case involves a petition for annulment filed by Fernando Aquino against Conchita Delizo on the grounds that Delizo concealed her pregnancy by another man when they married. The trial court dismissed the case due to lack of evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that concealment of pregnancy is fraud and grounds for annulment under the Civil Code. It remanded the case for a new trial to allow Aquino to present additional evidence, including birth certificates, to prove Delizo's alleged fraud. The Supreme Court held that given Delizo's natural plumpness and the early stage of pregnancy, Aquino could not reasonably have known of the pregnancy without concealment.

Uploaded by

Al Rx
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Fernando Aquino (Petitioner) vs.

Conchita Delizo (Respondent)

G.R. No. L-15853 July 27, 1960

Procedural History:

On September 6, 1955, the Petitioner filed an annulment case on the Court of First Instance (RTC) of Rizal against the
respondent on the grounds of fraud, that the Respondent concealed her pregnancy by another man. On June 16, 1956, the trial
court dismissed the case due to lack of evidence. The Petitioner then filed a “petition to reopen for reception of another evidence”
on the same court but was denied. On the Court of Appeals, the court denied the motion for reception of additional evidence and
affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The Petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court thru the petition for certiorari and
that the case be remanded to the lower court for new trial.

Statement of Facts:

The Petitioner, Fernando Aquino wanted to have his marriage with the Respondent, Conchita Delizo be annulled on the
ground of fraud, that the Respondent concealed her pregnancy by another man during the celebration of the marriage. The Court of
First Instance dismissed the complaint due to lack of evidence. The Petitioner claimed that he did not notice that her wife was four
months pregnant at the time of their marriage because the Respondent was naturally plump or fat. The Petitioner tried to present to
the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeals certificate of birth, delivery of birth of their child, and affidavits presenting evidences
that the Respondent had two children with Petitioner’s brother, Cesar Aquino, and birth certificates of the children, and that he
failed to secure these evidences earlier because of excusable negligence. Both Courts nonetheless denied the Petitioner’s petition.
The Court of Appeals did not believe the Petitioner’s claim that he did not notice or even suspect that the Respondent was pregnant
when he married her. The Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but to no avail, the motion was denied because the Fiscal
and the Respondent failed to file an answer to the motion. The Petitioner filed to the Supreme Court the petition for certiorari and
that the case be remanded to the lower court for new trial.

Issue:

Whether or not the concealment of the Respondent of pregnancy was indeed a fraud, and thus a ground for annulment of
their marriage.

Answer:

Yes, concealment of pregnancy by a man other than her husband is a fraud and can be a ground for annulment.

Reasoning:

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. (Art. 85, par. (4) in relation to Art. 86, par. (3).
The defendant wife was alleged to be only more than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage to plaintiff. At that stage,
her pregnancy was not readily apparent, especially since she was "naturally plump" or fat as alleged by plaintiff. According to
medical authorities, even on the 5th month of pregnancy, the enlargement of a woman's abdomen is still below the umbilicus, that
is to say, the enlargement is limited to the lower part of the abdomen so that it is hardly noticeable and may, if noticed, be
attributed only to fat formation on the lower part of the abdomen. It is only on the 6th month of pregnancy that the enlargement of
the woman's abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent.
(See Lull, Clinical Obstetrics, p. 122) If, as claimed by plaintiff, defendant is "naturally plump", he 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. Even physicians and surgeons, with the aid of the woman herself who shows and gives her
subjective and objective symptoms, can only claim positive diagnosis of pregnancy in 33% at five months. and 50% at six months. (XI
Cyclopedia of Medicine, Surgery, etc. Pregnancy, p. 10).

Holding:

The decision complained of is set aside and the case remanded to the court a quo for new trial. Without costs. That the
evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial, taken together with what has already been adduced would be sufficient to sustain
the fraud alleged by Petitioner. The Court of Appeals should, therefore, not have denied the motion praying for new trial simply
because defendant failed to file her answer thereto.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy