G.R. No. L-15853 - Aquino vs. Delizo

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-15853)

Key Dates

Marriage of the parties: December 27, 1954.
Complaint for annulment filed: September 6, 1955.
Alleged birth of respondent’s child: April 1955 (birth certificate later shows April 26, 1955).
Trial court dismissal: June 16, 1956.
Appeal and Court of Appeals decision: prior to March 17, 1959 (motion for reconsideration filed March 17, 1959); motion denied August 6, 1959.
Supreme Court decision date: July 27, 1960.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Context

Applicable Constitution: 1935 Philippine Constitution (the decision was rendered in 1960, thus pre‑1987 constitutional law applies).
Substantive law controlling the annulment claim: provisions of the New Civil Code governing annulment for fraud — specifically Article 85(4) and Article 86(3) as invoked by the courts and parties.

Procedural Background

Petitioner filed for annulment on the ground of fraud, alleging that respondent concealed pregnancy by another man at the time of marriage. At trial the court ordered the Assistant Provincial Fiscal to represent the State to guard against collusion. Only the plaintiff testified and only the marriage contract was admitted as documentary evidence. The respondent did not appear to testify or present evidence despite her counsel’s reservation to do so later. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of proof, noting absence of a birth certificate showing the child was born within 180 days after marriage and holding that concealment of pregnancy did not constitute annulment-grade fraud in the circumstances. Petitioner moved to reopen and present additional evidence (birth and delivery certificates); the trial court denied that motion. On appeal the Court of Appeals found excusable neglect in petitioner’s earlier failure to present the birth certificate but nevertheless affirmed dismissal on the theory that the child could have been conceived by petitioner (i.e., possible premarital intercourse) and that petitioner’s lack of suspicion was implausible. Petitioner later filed a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals attaching affidavits and documents asserting that another man (Cesar Aquino) was the child’s father; the Court of Appeals denied the motion, stating disbelief of the motion’s veracity and because the opposing parties did not answer. Petitioner then sought certiorari review before the Supreme Court.

Facts Presented and Evidence Relied Upon

At trial: petitioner’s testimony and the marriage contract only; absence of birth certificate at that time.
Post‑trial/newly presented materials attached to the motion for reconsideration included: (1) affidavit of Cesar Aquino admitting paternity of respondent’s firstborn and concealment of pregnancy; (2) affidavit of respondent/concede admitting pregnancy by Cesar and concealment; (3) affidavit of Albert Powell regarding cohabitation of respondent and Cesar prior to marriage; (4) birth certificate of the firstborn (April 26, 1955); (5) birth certificates of two subsequent children of respondent and Cesar; and (6) photographs of respondent showing natural plumpness up to November 1954. The record also reflects respondent’s nonappearance at trial and the fiscal’s appointment to represent the State.

Legal Issue(s) Presented

Whether concealment by the wife, at the time of marriage, that she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud sufficient to annul the marriage under the Civil Code (Art. 85, par. 4 in relation to Art. 86, par. 3).
Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals rightly denied petitioner’s motions to reopen and to admit additional evidence, and whether the appellate court properly sustained dismissal despite the newly tendered evidence and affidavits.

Governing Legal Principles and Precedent

The court applied the New Civil Code provisions cited by the parties and the courts below: concealment of a pregnancy by the wife at the time of marriage, if by a man other than her husband, is actionable fraud entitling the husband to annulment (Art. 85(4) read in relation to Art. 86(3)). The Court considered Buccat v. Buccat (72 Phil., 19), a prior decision in which concealment was rejected because the defendant’s pregnancy was manifest (seventh month) at time of marriage, making the husband’s claim of ignorance unbelievable. The Supreme Court also referenced obstetrical authority (Lull, Clinical Obstetrics and XI Cyclopedia of Medicine, Surgery, etc.) concerning visibility and detectability of pregnancy at various months.

Court’s Analysis of the Evidence and Distinction from Precedent

The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s dismissal could not be sustained. It reasoned that under the Civil Code concealment of pregnancy by the wife, when she is pregnant by another man at the time of marriage, constitutes fraud sufficient for annulment. However, the Court distinguished Buccat: in Buccat the pregnancy was in an advanced (seventh) month and readily apparent, undermining the husband’s claim of ignorance; in the present case the pregnancy was slightly over four months at the time of marriage and the respondent was described as “naturally plump,” so abdominal enlargement could have been attributed to fat and not perceptible as pregnancy. The Court relied on medical authorities indicating that positive diagnosis of pregnancy is limited at five months (33%) and at six months (50%), and that a distinct supra‑umbilical enlargement commonly appears only in the sixth month. Accordingly, the Court found it unreasonable to conclude, without more, that petitioner must have known or suspected the pregnancy.

The Court further rejected the Court of Appeals’ speculative suggestion that premarital intercourse between petitioner and respondent could account for the child’s conception. The Supreme Court found that assertion conjectural and unsupported by the record. Conversely, the affidavits and documents tendered with the motion for reconsideration — when viewed together with the evidence already in the record — were deemed sufficient to sustain the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-15853)

Citation and Court

Reported at 109 Phil. 21; G.R. No. L-15853; decision dated July 27, 1960.
Decision authored by Justice Gutierrez David.
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal by the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

Parties

Petitioner: Fernando Aquino.
Respondent/defendant below: Conchita Delizo.
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jose Goco was ordered by the trial court to represent the State in the proceedings to prevent collusion.

Nature of the Action and Ground Alleged

Original action: Complaint for annulment of marriage filed by petitioner on September 6, 1955.
Ground alleged: Fraud — specifically, that respondent concealed from petitioner that she was pregnant by another man at the time of their marriage (December 27, 1954), and that she gave birth to a child in April 1955 (allegedly April 26, 1955).

Respondent's Plea at Trial

Respondent claimed that the child was conceived out of lawful wedlock between her and petitioner (i.e., that the child was the petitioner's).

Trial Court Proceedings and Evidence Presented

Both parties' attorneys appeared at trial.
The trial court ordered Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jose Goco to represent the Government to prevent collusion.
Only the plaintiff (petitioner) testified.
The only documentary evidence presented at trial was the marriage contract between the parties.
The defendant (respondent) did not appear to testify nor did she present evidence, despite her counsel's reservation that he would present evidence at a later date.

Trial Court Decision (June 16, 1956)

The trial court dismissed the complaint.
Reasons stated by the trial court:
- No birth certificate was presented to show that the child was born within 180 days after the marriage.
- The court held that concealment of pregnancy, as alleged by the plaintiff, does not constitute such fraud as would annul a marriage.

Post-trial Motion to Reopen / Reception of Additional Evidence

Plaintiff filed a verified "petition to reopen for reception of additional evidence" attempting to present certificates of birth and delivery of the child born April 26, 1955.
Plaintiff asserted he had failed to secure and produce the certificates earlier through excusable negligence.
The petition to reopen was denied by the trial court.

Court of Appeals Findings and Ruling

The Court of Appeals found there had been excusable neglect in the plaintiff's inability to present proof of the child's birth (the birth certificate).
The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in denying the motion for reception of additional evidence.
However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on other grounds:
- The appellate court reasoned it was not impossible that petitioner and respondent had sexual intercourse during their engagement, so the child could have been their own.
- The appellate court found petitioner’s claim that he did not notice or even suspect respondent’s pregnancy when he married her to be unbelievable.
Thus, despite finding error regarding reception of additional evidence, the appellate court affirmed dismissal.

Subsequent Motion for Reconsideration to the Court of Appeals (March 17, 1959) — Attachments and Allegations

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration or, if denied, for remand to the lower court for a new trial.
Plaintiff attached seven annexes to the motion:
1. Affidavit of Cesar Aquino (Annex A) — Cesar is described as defendant’s brother-in-law and plaintiff’s brother, with whom defendant was living at the time plaintiff met, courted and married her; the affidavit allegedly admits he is the father of defendant’s first born, Catherine Bess Aquino, and that he and defendant hid her pregnancy from plaintiff at the time of plaintiff’s marriage to defendant.
2. Affidavit of defendant, Conchita Delizo (Annex B) — allegedly admitting her pregnancy by Cesar Aquino (her brother-in-law and plaintiff’s brother) at the time of her marriage to plaintiff and admitting she hid this fact from plaintiff before and up to the time of their marriage.
3. Affidavit of Albert Powell (Annex C) — stating that he knew Cesar Aquino and defendant lived together as husband and wife before Decembe