G.R. No. L-15853 July 27, 1960FERNANDO AQUINO, petitioner, vs.CONCI!A DELI"O, respondent.GU!IERRE" DA#ID, J.$This is a petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals afrming that of the Court of First Instance of Rizal which dismissed petitioner's complaint for annulment of his marriage with respondent Conchita elizo.The dismissed complaint, which was !led on "eptem#er $, %&'', was #ased on the ground of fraud, it #eing alleged, among other things, that defendant Conchita elizo, herein respondent, at the date of her marriage to plainti(, herein petitioner Fernando A)uino, on ecem#er *+, %&',, concealed from the latter that fact that she was pregnant #- another man, and sometime in April, %&'', or a#out four months after their marriage, gave #irth to a child. In her answer, defendant claimed that the child was conceived out oflawful wedloc. #etween her and the plainti(.At the trial, the attorne-'s for #oth parties appeared and the court a quo ordered Assistant /rovincial Fiscal0ose 1oco to represent the "tate in the proceedings to prevent collusion. 2nl- the plainti( however, testi!ed and the onl- documentar- evidence presented was the marriage contract #etween the parties. efendant neither appeared nor presented an- evidence despite the reservation made #- her counsel that he would present evidence on a later date.2n 0une %$, %&'$, the trial court 3 noting that no #irth certi!cate was presented to show that the child was #orn within %45 da-s after the marriage #etween the parties, and holding that concealment of pregnanc- as alleged #- the plainti( does not constitute such fraud sa would annul a marriage 3 dismissed the complaint. Through a veri!ed 6petition to reopen for reception of additional evidence6, plainti( tried to present the certi!cates of #irth and deliver- of the child #orn of the defendant on April *$,%&'', which documents, according to him, he had failed to secure earlier and produce #efore the trial court thru e7cusa#le negligence. The petition, however, was denied.2n appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court held that there has #een e7cusa#le neglect in plainti('s ina#ilit- to present the proof of the child's #irth, through her #irth certi!cate, and for that reason the court a quo erred in den-ing the motion for reception of additional evidence. 2n the theor-, however, thatit was not impossi#le for plainti( and defendant to have had se7ual intercourse during their engagement so that the child could #e their own, and !nding un#elieva#le plainti('s claim that he did not notice or even suspect that defendant was pregnant when he married her, the appellate court, nevertheless, afrmed the dismissal of the complaint.2n 8arch %+, %&'&, plainti( !led a motion pra-ing that the decision #e reconsidered, or, if such reconsideration #e denied, that the case #e remanded to the lower court for new trial. In support of the motion, plainti( attached as anne7es thereof the following documents9%. Afdavit of Cesar A)uino :Anne7 A; :defendant's #rother%&'( 1/FRACRTIC?@ ,5 A FA8I?B C2@A CD??ITB 2F /R@EI2D" 8ARRIA1@F. Afdavit of Al#ert /owell :Anne7 6C6; stating that he .new Cesar A)uino and defendant lived together as hus#and and wife #efore ecem#er *+, %&',, the date of plainti('s marriage to defendant>,. =irth Certi!cate of defendant's !rst #orn, Catherine =ess A)uino showing her date of #irth to #e April *$, %&''>'. =irth Certi!cate :Anne7 66; of Carolle Ann A)uino, the second child of defendant with Cesar A)uino, her #rother and+. /ictures of defendant showing her natural plumpness as earl- as %&'* to as late as Covem#er, %&',, the Covem#er, %&', photo itself does not show defendant's pregnanc- which must have #een almost fourmonths old at the time the picture was ta.en.Acting upon the motion, the Court of Appeals ordered the defendant Conchita elizo and Assistant /rovincial Fiscal of Rizal, who was representing the 1overnment, to answer the motion for reconsideration,and deferred action on the pra-er for new trial until after the case is disposed of. As #oth the defendant and the !scal failed to !le an answer, and stating that it 6does not #elieve the veracit- of the contents of the motion and its anne7es6, the Court of Appeals, on August $, %&'&, denied the motion. From that order,the plainti( #rought the case to this Court thru the present petition for certiorari.After going over the record of the case, we !nd that the dismissal of plainti('s complaint cannot #e sustained.Dnder the new Civil Code, concealment #- the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant #- a man other than her hus#and constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment of marriage. :Art. 4', par. :,; in relation to Art. 4$, par. :F;. In the case of Buccat vs. Buccat :+* /hil., %&; cited in the decision sought to #e reviewed, which was also an action for the annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud, plainti('s claim that he did not even suspect the pregnanc- of the defendant was held to #e un#elieva#le, it having #een proven that the latter was alread- in an advanced stage of pregnanc- :+th month; at the time of their marriage. That pronouncement, however, cannot appl- to the case at #ar. Gere the defendant wife was alleged to #e onl- more than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage to plainti(. At that stage, we are not prepared to sa- that her pregnanc- was readil- apparent, especiall- since she was 6naturall- plump6 or fat as alleged #- plainti(. According to medical authorities, even on the 'th month of pregnanc-, the enlargement of a woman's a#domen is still #elow the um#ilicus,that is to sa-, the enlargement is limited to the lower part of the a#domen so that it is hardl- noticea#le and ma-, if noticed, #e attri#uted onl- to fat formation on the lower part of the a#domen. It is onl- on the $th month of pregnanc- that the enlargement of the woman's a#domen reaches a height a#ove the um#ilicus, ma.ing the roundness of the a#domen more general and apparent. :"ee ?ull, Clinical 2#stetrics, p. %**; If, as claimed #- plainti(, defendant is 6naturall- plump6, he could hardl- #e e7pected to .now, merel- #- loo.ing, whether or not she was pregnant at the time of their marriage more so #ecause she must have attempted to conceal the true state of a(airs. @ven ph-sicians and surgeons, withthe aid of the woman herself who shows and gives her su#Hective and o#Hective s-mptoms, can onl- claimpositive diagnosis of pregnanc- in FFI at !ve months. and '5I at si7 months. :JI C-clopedia of 8edicine, "urger-, etc. /regnanc-, p. %5;.The appellate court also said that it was not impossi#le for plainti( and defendant to have had se7ual intercourse #efore the- got married and therefore the child could #e their own. This statement, however, is purel- conHectural and !nds no support or Husti!cation in the record.Dpon the other hand, the evidence sought to #e introduced at the new trial, ta.en together with what has alread- #een adduced would, in our opinion, #e sufcient to sustain the fraud alleged #- plainti(. The Court of Appeals should, therefore, not have denied the motion pra-ing for new trial simpl- #ecause %&'( 2/FRACRTIC?@ ,5 A FA8I?B C2@A CD??ITB 2F /R@EI2D" 8ARRIA1@defendant failed to !le her answer thereto. "uch failure of the defendant cannot #e ta.en as evidence of collusion, especiall- since a provincial !scal has #een ordered of represent the 1overnment precisel- to prevent such collusion. As to the veracit- of the contents of the motion and its anne7es, the same can #est #e determined onl- after hearing evidence. In the circumstance, we thin. that Hustice would #e #etter served if a new trial were ordered.Kherefore, the decision complained of is set aside and the case remanded to the court a )uo for new trial.Kithout costs.%&'( 3/FRACRTIC?@ ,5 A FA8I?B C2@A CD??ITB 2F /R@EI2D" 8ARRIA1@G.R. No. 109975F()*u&*y 9, 2001RE%U+LIC OF !E %ILI%%INE,, petitioner, vs.ERLINDA -A!IA, DAGDAG, respondent.QUI,U-+ING, J.$For review on certiorari is the decision% of the Court of Appeals dated April **, %&&F, in CAF. 2rdering the defendant to give monthl- !nancial support to all the children> and,. /ursuant to the provisions of A.8. Co. 5*IITG@ G2C2RA=?@ C2DRT 2F A//@A?" @RR@ IC D/G2?IC1 TG@ @CI"I2C 2F TG@ TRIA? C2DRT A" R@1AR" TG@ 2R@R @C?ARIC1 TG@ 8ARRIA1@ A" CD?? AC E2I 2C TG@ 1R2DC 2F /@TITI2C@R'" /"BCG2?21ICA? ICCA/ACITB>IIITG@ G2C2RA=?@ C2DRT 2F A//@A?" @RR@ IC D/G2?IC1 TG@ @CI"I2C 2F TG@ TRIA? C2DRT A" R@1AR" TG@ 2R@R T2 F2RF@IT TG@ "GAR@ 2F /@TITI2C@R IC GI" "GAR@ 2F TG@ C2C0D1A?A""@T".*&Ou* Rul84'I. The stringent rules of procedures may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice and in the Court's exercise of equity jurisdiction.1enerall-, an appeal ta.en either to the "upreme Court or the CA #- the wrong or inappropriate mode shall #e dismissed.F5 This is to prevent the part- from #ene!ting from one's neglect and mista.es. o=(:(*, l8>(