34 Almelor v. RTC of Las Pinas
34 Almelor v. RTC of Las Pinas
34 Almelor v. RTC of Las Pinas
their frequent fights as a couple.7 Leonida complained that this was in stark
contrast to the alleged lavish affection Manuel has for his mother. Manuel's
MANUEL G. ALMELOR, petitioner, deep attachment to his mother and his dependence on her decision-making
vs. were incomprehensible to Leonida.8
THE HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, BRANCH
254, and LEONIDA T. ALMELOR, respondents. Further adding to her woes was his concealment to her of his homosexuality.
Her suspicions were first aroused when she noticed Manuel's peculiar
DECISION closeness to his male companions. For instance, she caught him in an
indiscreet telephone conversation manifesting his affection for a male
REYES, R.T., J.: caller.9 She also found several pornographic homosexual materials in his
possession.10 Her worse fears were confirmed when she saw Manuel kissed
another man on the lips. The man was a certain Dr. Nogales.11 When she
MARRIAGE, in its totality, involves the spouses' right to the community of confronted Manuel, he denied everything. At this point, Leonida took her
their whole lives. It likewise involves a true intertwining of personalities. 1 children and left their conjugal abode. Since then, Manuel stopped giving
support to their children.12
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) denying the petition for annulment of judgment and affirming in Dr. Valentina del Fonso Garcia, a clinical psychologist, was presented to
toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Las Piñas, Branch 254. prove Leonida's claim. Dr. del Fonso Garcia testified that she conducted
The CA dismissed outright the Rule 47 petition for being the wrong remedy. evaluative interviews and a battery of psychiatric tests on Leonida. She also
had a one-time interview with Manuel and face-to-face interviews with Ma.
The Facts Paulina Corrinne (the eldest child).13 She concluded that Manuel is
psychologically incapacitated.14 Such incapacity is marked by antecedence; it
Petitioner Manuel G. Almelor (Manuel) and respondent Leonida Trinidad existed even before the marriage and appeared to be incurable.
(Leonida) were married on January 29, 1989 at the Manila Cathedral. 3 Their
union bore three children: (1) Maria Paulina Corinne, born on October 20, Manuel, for his part, admitted that he and Leonida had some petty arguments
1989; (2) Napoleon Manuel, born on August 9, 1991; and (3) Manuel Homer, here and there. He, however, maintained that their marital relationship was
born on July 4, 1994.4 Manuel and Leonida are both medical practitioners, an generally harmonious. The petition for annulment filed by Leonida came as a
anesthesiologist and a pediatrician, respectively.5 surprise to him.
After eleven (11) years of marriage, Leonida filed a petition with the RTC in Manuel countered that the true cause of Leonida's hostility against him was
Las Piñas City to annul their marriage on the ground that Manuel was their professional rivalry. It began when he refused to heed the
psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations. The case, memorandum15 released by Christ the King Hospital. The memorandum
docketed as LP-00-0132 was raffled off to Branch 254. ordered him to desist from converting his own lying-in clinic to a primary or
secondary hospital.16 Leonida's family owns Christ the King Hospital which is
During the trial, Leonida testified that she first met Manuel in 1981 at the San situated in the same subdivision as Manuel's clinic and residence.17 In other
Lazaro Hospital where they worked as medical student clerks. At that time, words, he and her family have competing or rival hospitals in the same
she regarded Manuel as a very thoughtful person who got along well with vicinity.
other people. They soon became sweethearts. Three years after, they got
married.6 Manuel belied her allegation that he was a cruel father to their children. He
denied maltreating them. At most, he only imposed the necessary discipline
Leonida averred that Manuel's kind and gentle demeanor did not last long. In on the children.
the public eye, Manuel was the picture of a perfect husband and father. This
was not the case in his private life. At home, Leonida described Manuel as a He also defended his show of affection for his mother. He said there was
harsh disciplinarian, unreasonably meticulous, easily angered. Manuel's nothing wrong for him to return the love and affection of the person who
unreasonable way of imposing discipline on their children was the cause of reared and looked after him and his siblings. This is especially apt now that
his mother is in her twilight years.18 Manuel pointed out that Leonida found 3. Ordering the defendant to give monthly financial support to all the
fault in this otherwise healthy relationship because of her very jealous and children; and
possessive nature.19
4. Pursuant to the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC:
This same overly jealous behavior of Leonida drove Manuel to avoid the
company of female friends. He wanted to avoid any further misunderstanding a. Directing the Branch Clerk of this Court to enter this
with his wife. But, Leonida instead conjured up stories about his sexual Judgment upon its finality in the Book of Entry of Judgment
preference. She also fabricated tales about pornographic materials found in and to issue an Entry of Judgment in accordance thereto;
his possession to cast doubt on his masculinity. 20 and
To corroborate his version, he presented his brother, Jesus G. Almelor. b. Directing the Local Civil Registrars of Las Piñas City and
Jesus narrated that he usually stayed at Manuel's house during his weekly Manila City to cause the registration of the said Entry of
trips to Manila from Iriga City. He was a witness to the generally harmonious Judgment in their respective Books of Marriages.
relationship between his brother Manuel and sister-in-law, Leonida. True,
they had some quarrels typical of a husband and wife relationship. But there
Upon compliance, a decree of nullity of marriage shall be issued.
was nothing similar to what Leonida described in her testimony.21
SO ORDERED.24 (Emphasis supplied)
Jesus further testified that he was with his brother on the day Leonida
allegedly saw Manuel kissed another man. He denied that such an incident
occurred. On that particular date,22 he and Manuel went straight home from a The trial court nullified the marriage, not on the ground of Article 36, but
trip to Bicol. There was no other person with them at that time, except their Article 45 of the Family Code. It ratiocinated:
driver.23
x x x a careful evaluation and in-depth analysis of the surrounding
Manuel expressed his intention to refute Dr. del Fonso Garcia's findings by circumstances of the allegations in the complaint and of the evidence
presenting his own expert witness. However, no psychiatrist was presented. presented in support thereof (sic) reveals that in this case (sic) there
is more than meets the eyes (sic).
RTC Disposition
Both legally and biologically, homosexuality x x x is, indeed,
generally incompatible with hetero sexual marriage. This is reason
By decision dated November 25, 2005, the RTC granted the petition for enough that in this jurisdiction (sic) the law recognizes marriage as a
annulment, with the following disposition:
special contract exclusively only between a man and a woman x x x
and thus when homosexuality has trespassed into marriage, the
WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing, judgment is hereby same law provides ample remedies to correct the situation [Article
rendered: 45(3) in relation to Article 46(4) or Article 55, par. 6, Family Code].
This is of course in recognition of the biological fact that no matter
1. Declaring the marriage contracted by herein parties on 29 January how a man cheats himself that he is not a homosexual and forces
1989 and all its effects under the law null and void from the himself to live a normal heterosexual life, there will surely come a
beginning; time when his true sexual preference as a homosexual shall prevail
in haunting him and thus jeopardizing the solidity, honor, and welfare
2. Dissolving the regime of community property between the same of his own family.25
parties with forfeiture of defendant's share thereon in favor of the
same parties' children whose legal custody is awarded to plaintiff Manuel filed a notice of appeal which was, however, denied due course.
with visitorial right afforded to defendant; Undaunted, he filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA.26
Manuel contended that the assailed decision was issued in excess of the THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING
lower court's jurisdiction; that it had no jurisdiction to dissolve the absolute THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT AS REGARDS THE
community of property and forfeit his conjugal share in favor of his children. ORDER DECLARING THE MARRIAGE AS NULL AND VOID ON
THE GROUND OF PETITIONER'S PSYCHOLOGICAL
CA Disposition INCAPACITY;
On July 31, 2007, the CA denied the petition, disposing as follows: III
WHEREFORE, the present Petition for Annulment of Judgment is THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING
hereby DENIED. The Court AFFIRMS in toto the Decision (dated THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT AS REGARDS THE
November 25, 2005) of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 254), in Las ORDER TO FORFEIT THE SHARE OF PETITIONER IN HIS
Piñas City, in Civil Case No. LP-00-0132. No costs.27 SHARE OF THE CONJUGAL ASSETS.29
The CA stated that petitioner pursued the wrong remedy by filing the Our Ruling
extraordinary remedy of petition for annulment of judgment. Said the
appellate court: I. The stringent rules of procedures may be relaxed to serve the
demands of substantial justice and in the Court's exercise of equity
It is obvious that the petitioner is questioning the propriety of the jurisdiction.
decision rendered by the lower Court. But the remedy assuming
there was a mistake is not a Petition for Annulment of Judgment but Generally, an appeal taken either to the Supreme Court or the CA by the
an ordinary appeal. An error of judgment may be reversed or wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.30This is to prevent the party
corrected only by appeal. from benefiting from one's neglect and mistakes. However, like most rules,
it carries certain exceptions. After all, the ultimate purpose of all rules of
What petitioner is ascribing is an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction, procedures is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. 31
which is properly the subject of an ordinary appeal.
Annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a last remedy. It can not be resorted
In short, petitioner admits the jurisdiction of the lower court but he to if the ordinary remedies are available or no longer available through no
claims excess in the exercise thereof. "Excess" assuming there was fault of petitioner.32 However, in Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals,33 this Court
is not covered by Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The clarified the proper appreciation for technical rules of procedure, in this wise:
Rule refers the lack of jurisdiction and not the exercise thereof. 28
Rules of procedures are intended to promote, not to defeat,
Issues substantial justice and, therefore, they should not be applied in
a very rigid and technical sense. The exception is that while the
Rules are liberally construed, the provisions with respect to the
Petitioner Manuel takes the present recourse via Rule 45, assigning to the
rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are
CA the following errors:
strictly applied. As an exception to the exception, these rules
have sometimes been relaxed on equitable considerations. Also,
I in some cases the Supreme Court has given due course to an
appeal perfected out of time where a stringent application of the rules
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT would have denied it, but only when to do so would serve the
TREATING THE PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT AS demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of equity
A PETITION FOR REVIEW IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.34 (Emphasis and underscoring
THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; supplied)
II
For reasons of justice and equity, this Court has allowed exceptions to the and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding. As it
stringent rules governing appeals.35 It has, in the past, refused to sacrifice has been said, where the rigid application of the rules would frustrate
justice for technicality.36 substantial justice, or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance,
the courts are justified in exempting a particular case from the
After discovering the palpable error of his petition, Manuel seeks the operation of the rules.41(Underscoring supplied)
indulgence of this Court to consider his petition before the CA instead as a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Similarly, in the more recent case of Tan v. Dumarpa,42 petitioner Joy G. Tan
availed of a wrong remedy by filing a petition for review on certiorari instead
A perusal of the said petition reveals that Manuel imputed grave abuse of of a motion for new trial or an ordinary appeal. In the interest of justice, this
discretion to the lower court for annulling his marriage on account of his Court considered the petition, pro hac vice, as a petition for certiorari under
alleged homosexuality. This is not the first time that this Court is faced with a Rule 65.
similar situation. In Nerves v. Civil Service Commission,37 petitioner Delia R.
Nerves elevated to the CA a Civil Service Commission (CSC) decision This Court found that based on Tan's allegations, the trial court prima facie
suspending her for six (6) months. The CSC ruled Nerves, a public school committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering a judgment by default. If
teacher, is deemed to have already served her six-month suspension during uncorrected, it will cause petitioner great injustice. The Court elucidated in
the pendency of the case. Nevertheless, she is ordered reinstated without this wise:
back wages. On appeal, Nerves stated in her petition, inter alia:
Indeed, where as here, there is a strong showing that grave
1. This is a petition for certiorari filed pursuant to Article IX-A, Section miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the
7 of the Constitution of the Philippines and under Rule 65 of the Rules, we will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of
Rules of Court. substantial justice.43 (Underscoring supplied)
2. But per Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 Measured by the foregoing yardstick, justice will be better served by giving
(Revised Circular No. 1-91) petitioner is filing the instant petition with due course to the present petition and treating petitioner's CA petition as one
this Honorable Court instead of the Supreme Court.38 (Underscoring for certiorari under Rule 65, considering that what is at stake is the validity or
supplied) non-validity of a marriage.
The CA dismissed Nerves' petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy In Salazar v. Court of Appeals,44 citing Labad v. University of Southeastern
or the inappropriate mode of appeal.39 The CA opined that "under the Philippines, this Court reiterated:
Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 x x x appeals from
judgments or final orders or resolutions of CSC is by a petition for review."40 x x x The dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is
frowned upon. While the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural
This Court granted Nerves petition and held that she had substantially right, nonetheless it is an essential part of our judicial system and
complied with the Administrative Circular. The Court stated: courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the
right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the
That it was erroneously labeled as a petition for certiorari under Rule amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause,
65 of the Rules of Court is only a minor procedural lapse, not fatal to free from the constraints of technicalities.45
the appeal. x x x
Indeed, it is far better and more prudent for a court to excuse a technical
More importantly, the appeal on its face appears to be impressed lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on the merits to attain the
with merit. Hence, the Court of Appeals should have overlooked the ends of justice.46
insubstantial defects of the petition x x x in order to do justice to the
parties concerned. There is, indeed, nothing sacrosanct about Furthermore, it was the negligence and incompetence of Manuel's counsel
procedural rules, which should be liberally construed in order to that prejudiced his right to appeal. His counsel, Atty. Christine Dugenio,
promote their object and assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, repeatedly availed of inappropriate remedies. After the denial of her notice of
appeal, she failed to move for reconsideration or new trial at the first But if under the circumstances of the case, the rule deserts its proper
instance. She also erroneously filed a petition for annulment of judgment office as an aid to justice and becomes a great hindrance and chief
rather than pursue an ordinary appeal. enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and to
prevent a miscarriage of justice. In other words, the court has the
These manifest errors were clearly indicative of counsel's incompetence. power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule
These gravely worked to the detriment of Manuel's appeal. True it is that the whenever the purposes of justice require it.53
negligence of counsel binds the client. Still, this Court has recognized certain
exceptions: (1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the II. Concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to annul a
client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in outright marriage, not homosexuality per se.
deprivation of the client's liberty and property; or (3) where the interest of
justice so require.47 Manuel is a desperate man determined to salvage what remains of his
marriage. Persistent in his quest, he fought back all the heavy accusations of
The negligence of Manuel's counsel falls under the exceptions. Ultimately, incapacity, cruelty, and doubted masculinity thrown at him.
the reckless or gross negligence of petitioner's former counsel led to the loss
of his right to appeal. He should not be made to suffer for his counsel's grave The trial court declared that Leonida's petition for nullity had "no basis at all
mistakes. Higher interests of justice and equity demand that he be allowed to because the supporting grounds relied upon can not legally make a case
ventilate his case in a higher court. under Article 36 of the Family Code." It went further by citing Republic v.
Molina:54
In Apex Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,48 this Court explained thus:
Indeed, mere allegations of conflicting personalities, irreconcilable
It is settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. This is differences, incessant quarrels and/or beatings, unpredictable mood
based on the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the swings, infidelities, vices, abandonment, and difficulty, neglect, or
scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his failure in the performance of some marital obligations do not suffice
client. However, where counsel is guilty of gross ignorance, to establish psychological incapacity.55
negligence and dereliction of duty, which resulted in the client's being
held liable for damages in a damage suit, the client is deprived of his If so, the lower court should have dismissed outright the petition for not
day in court and the judgment may be set aside on such ground. In meeting the guidelines set in Molina. What Leonida attempted to
the instant case, higher interests of justice and equity demand that demonstrate were Manuel's homosexual tendencies by citing overt acts
petitioners be allowed to present evidence on their defense. generally predominant among homosexual individuals. 56 She wanted to
Petitioners may not be made to suffer for the lawyer's mistakes. This prove that the perceived homosexuality rendered Manuel incapable of
Court will always be disposed to grant relief to parties fulfilling the essential marital obligations.
aggrieved by perfidy, fraud, reckless inattention and downright
incompetence of lawyers, which has the consequence of But instead of dismissing the petition, the trial court nullified the marriage
depriving their clients, of their day in court.49(Emphasis supplied)
between Manuel and Leonida on the ground of vitiated consent by virtue of
fraud. In support of its conclusion, the lower court reasoned out:
Clearly, this Court has the power to except a particular case from the
operation of the rule whenever the demands of justice require it. With more
As insinuated by the State (p. 75, TSN, 15 December 2003), when
conviction should it wield such power in a case involving the sacrosanct there is smoke surely there is fire. Although vehemently denied by
institution of marriage. This Court is guided with the thrust of giving a party defendant, there is preponderant evidence enough to establish with
the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of one's action.50
certainty that defendant is really a homosexual. This is the fact that
can be deduced from the totality of the marriage life scenario of
The client was likewise spared from counsel's negligence in Government herein parties.
Service Insurance System v. Bengson Commercial Buildings,
Inc.51 and Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon.52 Said the Court in Bengson:
Before his marriage, defendant knew very well that people around
him even including his own close friends doubtedhis true sexual
preference (TSN, pp. 35-36, 13 December 2000; pp. 73-75, 15 homosexuality.59 Nowhere in the said decision was it proven by
December 2003). After receiving many forewarnings, plaintiff told preponderance of evidence that Manuel was a homosexual at the onset of
defendant about the rumor she heard but defendant did not do his marriage and that he deliberately hid such fact to his wife.60 It is the
anything to prove to the whole world once and for all the truth of all concealment of homosexuality, and not homosexuality per se, that vitiates
his denials. Defendant threatened to sue those people but nothing the consent of the innocent party. Such concealment presupposes bad faith
happened after that. There may have been more important matters and intent to defraud the other party in giving consent to the marriage.
to attend to than to waste time and effort filing cases against and be
effected by these people and so, putting more premiums on Consent is an essential requisite of a valid marriage. To be valid, it must be
defendant's denials, plaintiff just the same married him. Reasons freely given by both parties. An allegation of vitiated consent must be proven
upon reasons may be advanced to either exculpate or nail to the by preponderance of evidence. The Family Code has enumerated an
cross defendant for his act of initially concealing his homosexuality to exclusive list of circumstances61 constituting fraud. Homosexuality per se is
plaintiff, but in the end, only one thing is certain - even during his not among those cited, but its concealment.
marriage with plaintiff, the smoke of doubt about his real preference
continued and even got thicker, reason why obviously defendant This distinction becomes more apparent when we go over the
failed to establish a happy and solid family; and in so failing, plaintiff deliberations62 of the Committees on the Civil Code and Family Law, to wit:
and their children became his innocent and unwilling victims.
Justice Caguioa remarked that this ground should be eliminated in
Yes, there is nothing untoward of a man if, like herein defendant, he
the provision on the grounds for legal separation. Dean Gupit,
is meticulous over even small details in the house (sic) like wrongly
however, pointed out that in Article 46, they are talking only of
folded bed sheets, etc. or if a man is more authoritative in knowing "concealment," while in the article on legal separation, there is
what clothes or jewelry shall fit his wife (pp. 77-81, TSN, 15
actuality. Judge Diy added that in legal separation, the ground
December 2003); but these admissions of defendant taken in the
existed after the marriage, while in Article 46, the ground existed at
light of evidence presented apparently showing that he had extra
the time of the marriage. Justice Reyes suggested that, for clarity,
fondness of his male friends (sic) to the extent that twice on separate
they add the phrase "existing at the time of the marriage" at the end
occasions (pp. 4-7, TSN, 14 February 2001) he was allegedly seen of subparagraph (4). The Committee approved the suggestion.63
by plaintiff kissing another man lips-to-lips plus the homosexual
magazines and tapes likewise allegedly discovered underneath his
bed (Exhibits "L" and "M"), the doubt as to his real sex identity To reiterate, homosexuality per se is only a ground for legal separation. It is
becomes stronger. The accusation of plaintiff versus thereof of its concealment that serves as a valid ground to annul a
defendant may be the name of the game in this case; but the simple marriage.64 Concealment in this case is not simply a blanket denial, but one
reason of professional rivalry advanced by the defendant is certainly that is constitutive of fraud. It is this fundamental element that respondent
not enough to justify and obscure the question why plaintiff should failed to prove.
accuse him of such a very untoward infidelity at the expense and
humiliation of their children and family as a whole.57 In the United States, homosexuality has been considered as a basis for
divorce. It indicates that questions of sexual identity strike so deeply at one of
Evidently, no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the allegations the basic elements of marriage, which is the exclusive sexual bond between
that Manuel is a homosexual and that he concealed this to Leonida at the the spouses.65 In Crutcher v. Crutcher,66 the Court held:
time of their marriage. The lower court considered the public perception of
Manuel's sexual preference without the corroboration of witnesses. Also, it Unnatural practices of the kind charged here are an infamous
took cognizance of Manuel's peculiarities and interpreted it against his indignity to the wife, and which would make the marriage relation so
sexuality. revolting to her that it would become impossible for her to discharge
the duties of a wife, and would defeat the whole purpose of the
Even assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that Manuel is a homosexual, the lower relation. In the natural course of things, they would cause mental
court cannot appreciate it as a ground to annul his marriage with Leonida. suffering to the extent of affecting her health.67
The law is clear - a marriage may be annulled when the consent of either
party was obtained by fraud,58 such as concealment of
However, although there may be similar sentiments here in the Philippines, xxxx
the legal overtones are significantly different. Divorce is not recognized in the
country. Homosexuality and its alleged incompatibility to a healthy x x x The failure to cohabit becomes relevant only if it arises as a
heterosexual life are not sanctioned as grounds to sever the marriage bond result of the perpetration of any of the grounds for annulling the
in our jurisdiction. At most, it is only a ground to separate from bed and marriage, such as lack of parental consent, insanity, fraud,
board. intimidation, or undue influence x x x. Since the appellant failed to
justify his failure to cohabit with the appellee on any of these
What was proven in the hearings a quo was a relatively blissful marital union grounds, the validity of his marriage must be upheld.69
for more than eleven (11) years, which produced three (3) children. The
burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage rests on Leonida. Sadly, Verily, the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion, not only by solely
she failed to discharge this onus. taking into account petitioner's homosexuality per se and not its
concealment, but by declaring the marriage void from its existence.
The same failure to prove fraud which purportedly resulted to a vitiated
marital consent was found in Villanueva v. Court of Appeals.68 In Villanueva, This Court is mindful of the constitutional policy to protect and strengthen the
instead of proving vitiation of consent, appellant resorted to baseless family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the
portrayals of his wife as a perpetrator of fraudulent schemes. Said the Court: foundation of the family.70 The State and the public have vital interest in the
maintenance and preservation of these social institutions against desecration
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals, especially if they coincide by fabricated evidence.71 Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
with those of the trial court, as in the instant case, are generally validity of marriage.
binding on this Court. We affirm the findings of the Court of Appeals
that petitioner freely and voluntarily married private respondent and III. In a valid marriage, the husband and wife jointly administer and
that no threats or intimidation, duress or violence compelled him to enjoy their community or conjugal property.
do so, thus -
Article 96 of the Family Code, on regimes of absolute community property,
Appellant anchored his prayer for the annulment of his marriage on provides:
the ground that he did not freely consent to be married to the
appellee. He cited several incidents that created on his mind a
Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the community property
reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave danger shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the
to his life and safety. x x x
husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by
the wife for a proper remedy, which must be availed of within five
The Court is not convinced that appellant's apprehension of danger years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
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 In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to
he was allegedly being harassed, appellant worked as a security
participate in the administration of the common properties, the other
guard in a bank. Given the rudiments of self-defense, or, at the very
spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do
least, the proper way to keep himself out of harm's way. x x x
not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance without the
authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In
Appellant also invoked fraud to annul his marriage, as he was made the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or
to believe by appellee that the latter was pregnant with his child encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be
when they were married. Appellant's excuse that he could not have construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse
impregnated the appellee because he did not have an erection and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract
during their tryst is flimsy at best, and an outright lie at worst. The upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the
complaint is bereft of any reference to his inability to copulate with court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.
the appellee. x x x
A similar provision, Article 12472 prescribes joint administration and
enjoyment in a regime of conjugal partnership. In a valid marriage, both
spouses exercise administration and enjoyment of the property regime,
jointly.
In the case under review, the RTC decreed a dissolution of the community
property of Manuel and Leonida. In the same breath, the trial court forfeited
Manuel's share in favor of the children. Considering that the marriage is
upheld valid and subsisting, the dissolution and forfeiture of Manuel's share
in the property regime is unwarranted. They remain the joint administrators of
the community property.
SO ORDERED.