8/1/2015 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 072

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ee988882c20b3f4e1000a0094004f00ee/p/ALR652/?username=Guest 1/3

[ No. 47101 . April 25, 1941 ]

GODOFREDO BUCCAT , plaintiff and appellant, againstLUIDA Mangonon OF BUCCAT , demanded and appealed.

MARRIAGE ; Validity. ­ Marriage is a most sacredinstitution is the foundation upon which the society. You canstop this are necessary clear and convincing evidence. In thiscase there are no such evidence.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance ofBaguio. Carlos, J.

The facts are stated in the Court's decision.D. Feliciano Leviste , D. Thomas P. Panganiban and

Mrs. N. Sotera Megia for appellant.Doña Luida Mangonon of Buccat on its own behalf.

HORRILLENO , M .:

This matter has been raised to this superiority by theCourt of First Instance of Baguio, since only raises an issuepurely of law.

The March 20, 1939 the plaintiff commenced the presentcase, where the defendant did not appear, despite havingbeen duly summoned. So, I allowed the applicant to submitits evidence, the lower court ruled the case in favor of thedefendant. Hence this appeal.

20

20 PHILIPPINE ANNOTATED REPORTS

Buccat vs. Buccat

The applicant seeks the annulment of his marriage withthe defendant been Luida Buccat Mangonon of theNovember 26, 1938, in Baguio City, on the ground that, inconsenting to the marriage, he did it because the defendanthad assured him that she was virgin.

8/1/2015 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 072

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ee988882c20b3f4e1000a0094004f00ee/p/ALR652/?username=Guest 2/3

The decision of the lower court the following facts:

The claimant knew the defendant 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 cathedral in

the city of Baguio. After living cohabiting for a period of

eighty­nine days the defendant gave birth to a child for

nine months, on 23 February 1939. As a result of this

event, the plaintiff gave the defendant and did not make

marital life it.

We see no reason to overturn the original ruling. Indeed,

it is unlikely the appellant plaintiff's claim and he had not

even suspected the gravid state of the defendant, being

this, as is proved in pregnant condition well advanced. So

there is no need to estimate the fraud speaking the

appellant. The allegations of this in the sense that it is not

rare to find people tuck developed, it seems puerile to

deserve our consideration, especially as the applicant was

freshman of law.

Marriage is a most sacred institution: the foundation

upon which the society. You can stop this are necessary

clear and convincing evidence. In this case there are no

such evidence.

Finding the original ruling in accordance with law, it

should be confirmed, as hereby confirm it, in its entirety,

with costs to the appellant. So it is ordered.

Avanceña , Pres., Imperial , Diaz, and Laurel , JJ.,concur.

It is confirmed the sentence.

_______________

21

VOL. 72, APRIL 25.1941 21

Padilla vs. Meer

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

8/1/2015 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 072

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ee988882c20b3f4e1000a0094004f00ee/p/ALR652/?username=Guest 3/3