TOPIC: VOIDABLE MARRIAGES
D. Force, intimidation and undue influence
FC 45 (4) 47, (4) NCC 1335-1337, RPC 334 Last Paragraph
Sison v. Te Lay Ti
C.A. No. 7037,
May 7, 1952
FACTS:
Sison was forced by her father to marry a Chinese. The girl was virtually a prisoner in
the home of the parents of the husband. No sexual intercourse was had except a month later,
and even then, the Chinese had to threaten her with a knife. She subsequently escaped. This
case for annulment was then brought.
HELD:
The marriage here has not been ratified because there was no voluntary cohabitation. Here also, the
woman never consented to the status of a wife. Therefore, the marriage can be annulled.
SUPRA. TO THE CASE OF
RUIZ VS. ATIENZA
CA 40 OG 1903
[No. 5986. March 18, 1941]
[No. 5986. March 18, 1941]
JOSE RUIZ, plaintiff and appellant,
vs. PELAGIA ATIENZA, defendant and appellee.
ENGZON, J.:
DOCTRINE: The provision of the Marriage Law (Sec. 30, Act No. 3613) referring to "force" or
"violence" as ground of annulment of marriage, does not seem to include mere intimidation, at
least where it does not in legal effect amount to force or violence.
FACTS:
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Manila Court of First Instance denying plaintiff's
demand for the annulment of his marriage with defendant contracted on November 14,
1938, with all the outward legal formalities.
2. Previous to February, 1938, Jose Ruiz and Pelagia Atienza, both single, were sweethearts.
3. Loving perhaps too well, she allowed him, in a moment of weakness, to have his way, with
the result that nine months later she became an unmarried mother.
4. After the baby's birth, i. e., on November 14, 1938, Pelagia's father Jose Atienza, Atty.
Villavicencio (her cousin-in-law), and three other persons visited Jose Ruiz at the boarding
house where he lived, in Oregon street.
5. They requested, and after some discussion, convinced him to marry Pelagia.
6. With his cousin Alfredo Asuncion, he went with Jose Atienza and companions to Tanduay
street, where Pelagia was living;
7. from there the party, joined by Pelagia and others, went to the Aglipayan church at Maria
Clara street, Manila, then proceeded to secure a marriage license, and later returned to
the same Aglipayan church where the marriage was celebrated in the evening.
8. Four days later, alleging that he had been forced into wedlock, Jose Ruiz brought this suit to
secure its avoidance.
9. His counsel has 'dramatized the visit of Jose Atienza and companions, and the "plans"
drawn to force Jose Ruiz into the marriage, Jose's passive and downcast attitude, all in an
effort to maintain the proposition that Jose Ruiz went with them that afternoon "convinced"
by the following "arguments":
a. the threats of the father supported by his "balisong";
b. the unveiled intimidation by [Link] that if he would not marry Pelagia
Atienza, he would have difficulty when he would take the bar examinations because,
as he said, many have been rejected admission to the bar on the ground of
immorality; and
c. the promise of Atty. Villavicencio that Ruiz would be physically "safe" if he would go
with them.
ISSUE:
W/N Jose Ruiz was intimidated into marrying Pelagia Atienza?
HELD:
No!
1. As to the first, it appears that in the course of the conversation during the visit, Ruiz made
the statement that he could not marry Pelagia because he was already a married man.
2. This so aroused Jose Atienza that he grabbed Ruiz' necktie, exclaiming: "So you mean to
fool my daughter!"
3. Those present intervened quickly, and the dispute stopped.
4. The flare of anger is easily understandable.
5. But it is not sufficiently established that Jose Atienza displayed any "balisong", or
made any threat against the life of Ruiz.
6. In fact, only a one-and-a-half-inch knife was found in his possession by the policeman whom
the companions of Ruiz called upon seeing what they believed to be the beginning of
trouble.
7. As to the threat to obstruct his admission to the Bar, by filing charges against him for
immorality, the authorities are unanimous that it is not such a duress as to constitute
a reason for annuling the marriage.
8. * * * and where a man marries under the threat of, or constraint from, a lawful prosecution
for seduction or bastardy, he cannot avoid the marriage on the ground of duress; * * *.
9. As to the promise by Atty. Villavicencio, it is apparent that when defendant was
invited to go with them and marry Pelagia, he had some fears that he might be
subjected to bodily harm in retaliation for the dishonor inflicted upon her family.
10. For this reason, he had to be assured by Villavicencio that he would be safe if he went with
them.
11. From this statement, we cannot infer what appellant’s attorney would cleverly infer, i.e., that
Ruiz would not be safe if he did not follow them.
12. Appellant would make it appear that that afternoon Ruiz was practically kidnapped by
Pelagia's relatives until after the marriage ceremony.
a. That cannot be true.
b. He had many occasions to escape, as pointed out in appellee's brief.
c. He had companions in the house whom he could have asked for help.
d. There was even the policeman.
13. Now, considering that the law presumes strongly the validity of marriage once the formal
ceremonies have been completed, we are led to the conclusion that although plaintiff may
not have looked upon the ceremony as the happy culmination of youthful romance, still the
evidence does not warrant a pronouncement that his consent to it was obtained through
force or intimidation.
