Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

GR No. 47101 April 25, 1941

GODOFREDO BUCCAT, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.. Luida MANGONON OF BUCCAT, defendant-appellee.

D. Feliciano Leviste, D. Tomas P. Panganiban and Doña Sotera N. Megia in

representation of appellant.
Doña Luida Mangonon of Buccat in their own representation.

HORRILLENO, J. :

This issue has been raised to this superiority by the Court of First Instance of Baguio, as
only raises a pure question of law.

The March 20, 1939 the plaintiff inico the present case, in which the defendant is not
arraigned, despite having been duly summoned. So, allowed the plaintiff to present
evidence, the lower court ruling on the matter in favor of the defendant. Hence this
appeal.

The applicant seeks the annulment of her marriage with the defendant been Luida
Buccat Mangonon of the November 26, 1938 in Baguio City on the grounds that, in
consenting to the marriage, he did so because the defendant had assured him that she
was virgin.

From the decision of the lower court reveals the following facts:
The plaintiff met the defendant in March 1938. After several interviews, both were
committed on 19 September of the same year. On 26 November the same year, the
plaintiff married the defendant in the Catholic catedrla Baguio City. Desoues of living
maritally for about eighty-nine days, the defendant gave birth to a child of nine months,
the February 23, 1939. As a result of this event, the defendant abandoned plaintiff and
did not return to do her marital life.

We do not see any reason to overturn the original ruling. Indeed, it is improbable the
plaintiff and appellant's allegation that the suspect had not even gravido status of the
defendant, being this, as is proved, very advanced in pregnant condition. So it is not
necessary to estimate the fraud who speaks the appellant. I argued this in the sense
that countries not rare to find people of the abdomen developed, it seems childish to
merit our consideration, the more so as the plaintiff was freshman of law.

Marriage is a very sacred institution: is the foundation upon which society rests. To
cancel, are necessary to clear and irrefutable evidence. In this case no such evidence
exists.

Finding the original ruling consistent with the law, should be confirmed, as it hereby
confirm it, in its entirety, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, Pres, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, MM., are satisfied.