Ruiz v Atienza grabbed him by his necktie and exclaimed: “So
you mean to fool my daughter!” His reaction in
Grounds for Annulment | Violence et al. | 40 OG 1903 March
18, 1941 | Engzon, J. | By Agustin, A.
Summary:
1. Jose and Pelagia were lovers and had a baby outside of
marriage.
2. Pelagia’s father, cousin in law (Pel’s Atty.), et al.
convinced him to marry her, marriage license and all, in
Aglipay Church.
3. Four days later, he asked for an annulment claiming that
he was threatened, all of which the SC denied: (1) with
dad’s balisong – no proof; (2) obstructed admission to
the bar – this is a lawful prosecution for seduction; (3)
physical safety if he complies – only mentioned to make
him feel secure since he was scared on bodily harm for
inflicting dishonor to their fam.
4. SC also added that he made it look like he was
kidnapped, though he was chances to escape and call for
help; that force and violence defined under Marriage Law
did not include mere intimidation, in absence of
violation.
5. Marriage therefore NOT annullable.
Facts of the Case:
1. Jose Ruiz, the plaintiff, and Pelagia Atienza, the
defendant, were sweethearts in 1938.
2. Nine months later, they had a baby outside of marriage.
3. After the baby’s birth (Nov 14, 1939), Pelagia’s father,
cousin-in-law and three other persons visiting Ruiz in his
boarding house and convincing him into marrying
Pelagia.
4. After some discussion, they –including Pelagia—secured
a marriage license and solemnized their wedding that
same evening at an Aglipayan church.
5. Four days later, Ruiz brought suit trying to annul the
marriage alleging that he had been forced into wedlock.
He said he only went with them that afternoon because
he was “convinced” due to the following reasons:
a) He was threatened by Pelagia’s father with a
balisong;
b) Her cousin-in-law, Atty. Villavicencio, told him that if
he doesn’t marry Pelagia, he would have trouble in
the bar exams because many were rejected on the
ground of immorality;
c) Atty. Villavicencio’s promise that he would be
physically “safe” if he goes with them.
Issue:
WON being forced into marriage (due to threats and
intimidation) is enough reason to annul their marriage.
1. No, their marriage cannot be annulled.
2. First, the Court reviewed his arguments:
a. Re. Balisong: Dad’s threats only came after he
[initially] refused to marry Pelagia by reason
that he was already married. Mr. Atienza
anger was understandable and it was not
sufficiently established that the father had a
balisong or threatened Atienza’s life.
b. Re. Bar admission: It is not considered an act of
duress as to constitute an annulment of
marriage. (“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” - 38 C.J., sec. 70, p. 1305)
c. Re. promise: Promise of safety was only given to
make him feel secure since he was afraid of the
possible bodily harm he might endure in
retaliation for the dishonor he inflicted upon her
family.
3. Ruiz made it look like he was kidnapped until after the
marriage ceremony, although had several opportunities
to escape. He also had companions in the house whom
he could have called for help. There was also a
policeman.
4. 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.
a. Court cited the Marriage Law (sec 30 Act No.
3613) on “force” or “violence”; these do not
include mere intimidation, at least when it does
not legally involve force or violence.
b. Atienza’s attorney has successfully met the
issues, upholding the judge’s conclusion that
neither violence nor duress attended the
marriage celebration.
SC Ruling: MARRIAGE IS NOT ANNULLABLE.
See pertinent provisions:
Marriage Law (Act No. 3613)
Art 45 FC. Tolentino’s commentary: There is no duress when a man is
forced to marry a woman after seducing her to repair his wrong.