Eigenmann vs.

Guerra (1964)
Plaintiff-Appellant: Eduardo Eigenmann
Defendant: Maryden Guerra and Froilan Guerra (Maryden’s dad)

FACTS
Petition was instituted by Eduardo Eigenmann to annul his marriage to Maryden Guerra on the
ground that he was a minor who needed consent from his parents when he married (16 to 20 years
old). He alleged that his own consent to the marriage was obtained via threat, intimidation, and force
by Froilan Guerra and that the solemnizing office who administered the marriage license was not
authorized thereby rendering the said license void ab initio.
Eduardo and Maryden met at the Clover Theater in Manila wherein the former was an actor and the
latter was a dancer. They fell in love and decided to get married. On October 25, 1957, the two filed
applications for a marriage license with the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, with Eduardo
stating in his application that he was 25 years and 8 months old (Birthday: February 17, 1932).
Eduardo’s mother discussed the contemplated marriage with the parents of Maryden in Maryden’s
house. On November 5, 1957, both parties were married with the petitioner’s mother acting as one
of the present witnesses. They lived for a week in Maryden’s house and transferred to Eduardo’s
house for 3 to 4 months.

ISSUE (regarding with the topic: MINIMUM AGE OF MARRIAGE)

RULING
NO.
Trial court’s decision affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.

DOCTRINE
In his sworn application for a marriage license, he represented himself to be 25 years and 8 months
old; thereby making defendants believe that he was capacitated to marry without a need of parental
consent.
Art. 2 of Family Code states that:
No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
1. Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
2. Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.

On the other hand, the Court held that because the petitioner misrepresented his age and the
respondent married him in good faith that estoppel must apply to the petitioner.
 EIGENMANN V GUERRA
5 CA Rep. 836 II May 11, 1964 II Agustin
SUBJECT: Eduardo Eigenman action for annulment of marriage to Maryden Guerra.
FACTS:
1. Eigenman wants an annulment of his marriage to Maryden for the ff. reasons:
a. Age – He was only 16 – 20 y.o. at the time of marriage, and there was no consent from his mother, Maria de Mesa.
b. Forced – His own consent the marriage was obtained via threat, intimidation, and force by Froilan Guerra (Maryden’s
dad).
c. Invalid license – marriage license was obtained from a councilor of Quezon City, who is not authorized to administer
oaths; hence an invalid marriage license.
2. Guerra made the ff. counterclaims:
a. False age– Eigenman represented himself to be over 21 y.o.
b. Not forced – his mother was present during the marriage ceremony, and impliedly gave consent to marriage
c. No excuse – Eigenman should not excuse himself from marital obligations, to the prejudice of Maryden and detriment of
public interest; marriage as inviolable social institution.
3. Background
a. They met each other at Clover Theater, Manila as performers; decided to marry.
b. Feb 17, 1932. Filed applications for license with Local Civil Registrar, Quezon City. Eigenman indicates he is 25 years, 8
months old, Bday.
c. Nov 3, 1957. Parents of parties discussed marriage at Maryden’s house.
d. Nov 5, 1957. Marriage by Judge Prudencio Encomienda, license 358036.
e. They lived a week in M’s house, transferred to E’s house for 3-4 mos.
4. Lower Court dismissed the action; hence this appeal.
ISSUES:
1. WON a marriage in which one party is older than 16 but younger than 20 years old is valid.
2. WON the consent to a marriage by a parent or guardian must be in writing and under oath to make such marriage valid.
RATIO:
1. Re. age: E falsely represented his age, making defendants believe that he is of age to marry without consent
a. He is now prevented by estoppel in trying to prove otherwise. (Art 1431 CC: through estoppel, an admission or
representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the
person relying thereon.
b. If Court allows him to, it would be in bad faith and disregard of rules on fair play and honest dealing.
2. Re. threat: court finds no reasonable and well-grounded fear of imminent and grave evil upon appellant’s person or property.
a. Father said: Balia ko’y lumiligaw ka sa aking anak. Pag niloko mo iyan, mag-ingat ka.
b. Above is expected from concerned parents.
3. Re. license. The law declared null and void ab initio marriages that are WITHOUT license, AT ALL.
a. Licensed marriages are not invalidated by wrongfully obtained licenses, including lack of authority of subscribing officer.
b. Local civil registrar and solemnizing officer are not even required to investigate marriage license.
4. Re. consent:
a. Article 61 CC: Males under 20 years old and females less than 18 years old shall exhibit to the local registrar the consent
to their marriage by their father, mother, or guardian, or persons having legal charge over them. Such consent shall be in
writing under oath.
i. Article 61 pertains only to issuance of marriage license; not needed for validity of marriage solemnized under
license.
ii. Court considers licensed marriages valid, even though license, which was issued by competent official, was
improperly obtained or defective (in this case, defective because of false representation of age).
b. Article 85 CC. Marriage may be annulled for the ff: Party who seeks annulment was 16 – 20 years old (male) or 14 – 18
years old (female); that marriage is solemnized without consent of parent, guardian, etc.; unless, after attaining proper
age, party freely cohabits with other as husband and wife.
i. Article 85 declares as voidable marriage those that are solemnized without consent of the parent, guardian, or
person… authority.
ii. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that consent may be given in any form, including impliedly.
5. There is so merit on the contention that trial court erred in holding that the mere presence of appellant’s mother at time of marriage
ceremony was sufficient parental consent.
RULING:
Court a quo’s decision affirmed.