Case Title: JOSE RUIZ, plaintiff and appellant, vs. PELAGIA ATIENZA, defendant and appellee.
Date: a!"# $%, $&'$ G.R. N(.: N(. )&%* P(nente: +en-(n, J. Nat!e (f A"ti(n: Annl/ent 0ased (n f(!"e1inti/idati(n1t#!eat T(pi":
2a"ts: Jose Ruiz and Pelagia Atienza, both single, were sweethearts. Nine months later, she became an unmarried mother. After the baby’s birth on Nov. 1, 1!"#, Pelagie’s father Jose Atienza, Atty. $illavicencio her cousin%in%law, and three other &ersons visited Jose Ruiz Ruiz at the boarding boarding house where he lived. 'hey 'hey re(uested, and after some some discussion, convinced him to marry Pelagia. Pelagia. )ith his cousin Alfredo Asuncion, Jose went to 'anduay 'anduay street street where Pelagia Pelagia was living, living, and from there went to the the Agli&ayan *hurch at +aria *lara treet. 'hey &roceeded to secure a marriage license and later returned to the same church where the marriage was celebrated in the evening. -is counsel has dramatized the visit of Jose Atienza and com&anions, and the /&lans/ drawn to force Jose Ruiz into the marriage, Joses &assive and downcast attitude, all in an effort to maintainthe &ro&osition that Jose Ruiz went with them that afternoon /convinced/ by the following /arguments/0 the threats of the father su&&orted by his /balisong/ the unveiled intimidation by Atty. $illavicencio that if he would not marry Pelagia Atienza, he would have difficulty when he would tae the bar e2aminations e2aminations because, as he said, many have been re3ected admission to the bar on the ground of immorality4 and the &romise of Atty. $illavicencio that Ruiz would be &hysically /safe/ if he would go with .
• •
•
5t a&&ears 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. 'his so aroused Jose Atienza that he grabbed Ruiz nectie, e2claiming0 /o you mean to fool my daughter6/ 'hose &resent intervened (uicly, and the dis&ute sto&&ed.
Isse: 31N J(se Ri- 4as f(!"ed int( /a!!5in Pelaia Atien-a 05 t#e se (f f(!"e, nde inti/idati(n (! t#!eat Rlin: N(. It 4as n(t sffi"ientl5 esta0lis#ed t#at J(se Atien-e infli"ted f(!"ed, nde inti/idati(n (! t#!eat aainst J(se Ri-. Rati(: 'he flare of anger is easily understandable. 7ut it is not sufficiently established established that Jose Atienzadis&layed any /balisong/, or made any threat against the life of Ruiz. 5n fact, only a one%and%a%half%inch nife was found in his &ossession by the &oliceman whom the com&anions of Ruiz called u&on seeing what they believed to be the beginning of trouble. As to the threat to obstruct his admission to the 7ar, by filing charges against him for immorality, the authorities are unanimous that it is not such a duress as to constitute a reason for annulling the marriage. And where a man marries under the threat of, or constraint from, a lawful &rosecution for seduction (! 0asta!d5, #e "ann(t av(id t#e /a!!iae (n t#e !(nd (f d!ess. As to the &romise by Atty. $illavicencio, it is a&&arent that when defendant was invited to go with them and marry Pelagia, he had some fears that he might be sub3ected to bodily harm in retaliation for the dishonor inflicted u&on her family . 8or this reason, he had to be assured by $illavicencio that he would be safe if he went with them. 8rom this statement, we cannot infer what a&&ellants a&& ellants attorney would cleverly infer, i. e., that Ruiz would not be safe if he did not follow them. A&&ellant would mae it a&&ear that that afternoon Ruiz was &ractically idna&&ed by Pelagias relatives until after the marriage ceremony. 'hat cannot be true. -e had many occasions to esca&e, as &ointed out in a&&ellees brief. -e had com&anions in the house whom he could have ased for hel&. 'here was even the &oliceman. Now, considering that the law &resumes strongly the validity of marriage once the formal ceremonies have been com&leted, we are led to the conclusion that although &laintiff may not have looed u&on the ceremony as the ha&&y culmination of youthful romance, still the evidence does not warrant a &ronouncement that his consent to it was obtained through force or intimidation. 'he +arriage 9aw :sec ";, Act No. "<1"= which, referring to /force/or /violence/, does not seem to include mere
intimidation, at least where it does not in legal effectamount to force or violence. :ee article 1>
