44 Sy Buccatvbuccat

GODOFREDO BUCCAT v. LUIDA MANGONON DE BUCCAT GR No. 47101. April 25, 1941 FACTS: In the year 1938, petitioner Godofredo and defendant Luida met in March, ot enaed i Septem!er, and ot married in "o#em!er$ %n Fe!ruary &3, 1939 or eihty'nine day( after ettin married, Luida a#e !irth to a (on$ After )no*in thi(, Godofredo +eft Luida and ne#er returned to married +ife *ith her$ %n March &3, 1939, he fi+ed for an annu+ment of their marriae on the roun that *hen he areed to married Luida, (he a((ured him that (he *a( a #irin$ The +o*er court ru+e in fa#or of Luida$ ISS-: .hether or not annu+ment (hou+d !e ranted on the round that defendant concea+ed he prenancy$ /-L0: .e (ee no rea(on to o#erturn the oriina+ ru+in$ C+ear and authentic proof i( needed in order t nu++ify a marriae, a (acred in(titution, in *hich the State i( intere(ted and *here (ociety re(t($ I the ca(e at !ar, the Court did not find any proof that there *a( concea+ment of prenanc con(titutin fraud a( a round of annu+ment$ It *a( un+i)e+y that Godofredo, a fir(t'year +a* (tuden had not e#en (u(pected the ra#id (tate of Luida con(iderin that (he *a( a+ready in an ad#ance (tae of her prenancy *hen they ot married$

Upload
anjisy
Category

Documents
view
214
download
0

Embed Size (px):

description

buccat vs buccat

Transcript of 44 Sy Buccatvbuccat

GODOFREDOBUCCAT v. LUIDA MANGONON DEBUCCAT GR No. 47101. April 25, 1941

FACTS:

In the year 1938, petitioner Godofredo and defendant Luida met in March, got engaged in September, and got married in November. On February 23, 1939 or eighty-nine days after getting married, Luida gave birth to a son. After knowing this, Godofredo left Luida and never returned to married life with her. On March 23, 1939, he filed for an annulment of their marriage on the ground that when he agreed to married Luida, she assured him that she was a virgin. The lower court ruled in favor of Luida.

ISSUE:

Whether or not annulment should be granted on the ground that defendant concealed her pregnancy.

HELD:

We see no reason to overturn the original ruling. Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a marriage, a sacred institution, in which the State is interested and where society rests.In the case at bar, the Court did not find any proof that there was concealment of pregnancy constituting fraud as a ground of annulment. It was unlikely that Godofredo, a first-year law student, had not even suspected the gravid state of Luida considering that she was already in an advanced stage of her pregnancy when they got married.