Persons Marriage Case 1

7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 1

1/19

3

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 191425 September 7,

2011

ATILANO O. NOLLORA, R.,Petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE O! T"E P"ILIPPINES,

Responent.

T#e !$%t&

!. "#hat on or about the $th a% ofDece&ber '((! in )ue*on Cit%,

Philippines, the above+na&e

accuse #I-NO O. NO--OR,

R.,bein/ then le/all% &arrie toone ES0S PIN# NO--OR.

'. #I-NO O. NO--OR, R

contracte a subse1uent or secon&arria/e 2ith her sic4 co+accuse

RO5EN P. 6ER-DINO, 2ho7no2in/l% consente an a/ree to

be &arrie to her co+accuse

#I-NO O. NO--OR, R.7no2in/ hi& to be a &arrie &an, to

the a&a/e an pre8uice of the sai

offene part% ES0S PIN#

NO--OR."

3. 5hen ES0S PIN# NO--ORhear ru&ors that her husban hasanother 2ife, she returne to the

Philippines 9#SN, October :, '((;,

pa/e !(. ?e 9Musli& Priest, I&a&< eclare

that a Musli& convert coul &arr%

&ore than one accorin/ to the ?ol%@oran. ?o2ever,before &arr%in/

his secon, thir an fourth 2ives, it

is re1uire that the consent of the

first Musli& 2ife be secure. #hus,if the first 2ife is not a Musli&, there

is no necessit% to secure her consent

Durin/ his cross+eAa&inations, he eclarethat if a Musli& convert /ets &arrie not in

accorance 2ith the Musli& faith, the sa&e

is contrar% to the teachin/s of the Musli&faith. Musli& also can &arr% up to four

ti&es but he shoul be able to treat the&

e1uall%.

1


2/19

T#e Tr'$( Co)rt*& R)('+

In its Decision>ate != Nove&ber '((B.

#he principle in Isla& is that &ono/a&% isthe /eneral rule anpol%/a&% is allo2e

onl% to &eet ur/ent nees. Onl% 2ith the

per&ission of the court can a Musli& be

per&itte to have a secon 2ife sub8ect tocertain re1uire&ents.

n% Musli& husban esirin/ to contract

subse1uent &arria/es, before so oin/, shall

notif% the Sharia Circuit Court of the place

2here his fa&il% resies.

In fact, he i not even eclare that he 2as a

Musli& convert in both &arria/es,inicatin/ his cri&inal intent.

#here are re1uire&entsthat the Sharia la2

i&poses, that is, he shoul have notifie the

Sharia Court 2here his fa&il% resies sothat cop% of sai notice shoul be furnishe

to the first 2ife.

In an apparent atte&pt to escape cri&inal

liabilit%, the accuse recelebrate their&arria/e in accorance 2ith the Musli&

rites. ?o2ever, this can no lon/er cure the

cri&inal liabilit% that has alrea% beenviolate.

"(E)very circumstance favoring accuseds

innocence must be taken into account, proof

against him must survive the test of reason

and the strongest suspicion must not bepermitted to sway judgment" (People vs

!ustria, #$ %&'! ) #his Court,

therefore, has to ac1uit Ro2ena P. 6eralinofor failure of the prosecution to prove her

/uilt be%on reasonable oubt.

5?EREORE, pre&ises consiere,

8u/&ent is hereb% renere, as follo2s

a< inin/ accuse#I-NO O. NO--OR,

R. /uilt% be%on reasonableoubt of the cri&e of Fi/a&%

b< c1uittin/accuseRO5EN P. 6ER-DINO

of the cri&e of Fi/a&% for

failure of the prosecution toprove her /uilt be%on

reasonable oubt.

T#e Appe(($te Co)rt*& R)('+

On 3( Septe&ber '((=, the appellate court

is&isse Nolloras appeal an affir&e thetrial courts ecision.!!

#he appellate court re8ecte Nolloras

efense that his secon &arria/e to

6eralino 2as in la2ful eAercise of hisIsla&ic reli/ion an 2as allo2e b% the

)uran. #he appellate court enie Nolloras

invocation of his reli/ious beliefs an

practices to the pre8uice of the non+Musli&2o&en 2ho &arrie hi& pursuant to

Philippine civil la2s.avvphiNolloras t2o&arria/es 2ere not conucte in accorance

2ith the Coe of Musli& Personal -a2s,

hence the a&il% Coe of the Philippines

shoul appl%.Nolloras clai& of reli/iousfreeo& 2ill not i&&obili*e the State an

rener it i&potent in protectin/ the /eneral

2elfare.

T#e I&&)e

#he issue in this case is 2hether Nollora is

/uilt% be%on reasonable oubt of the cri&e

of bi/a&%.

T#e Co)rt*& R)('+

2
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/sep2011/gr_191425_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/sep2011/gr_191425_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/sep2011/gr_191425_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/sep2011/gr_191425_2011.html#fnt6


3/19

Nolloras petition has no &erit. 5e affir&

the rulin/s of the appellate court an of the

trial court.

Elements of Bigamy

rticle 3:= of the Revise Penal Coe

provies

rt. 3:=.*igamy #he penalt% of prision

mayorshall be i&pose upon an% person2ho shall contract a secon or subse1uent

&arria/e before the for&er &arria/e has

been le/all% issolve, or before the absentspouse has been eclare presu&ptivel%

ea b% &eans of a 8u/&ent renere in the

proper proceein/s.

#he ele&ents of the cri&e of bi/a&% are

!. #hat the offener has been

legally married.

'. #hat the &arria/e has not

been legally dissolvedor, incase his or her spouse is

absent, the absent spouse

could not yet be presumeddeadaccorin/ to the CivilCoe.

3. #hat he contracts asecond

orsubse+uent&arria/e.

:. #hat the secon orsubse1uent &arria/e has all

the essential re+uisites for

validity!3

#he circu&stances in the present case satisf%all the ele&ents of bi/a&%. 9!< Nollora is

le/all% &arrie to PinatG!:9'< Nollora an

Pinats &arria/e has not been le/all%issolveprior to the ate of the secon

&arria/eG 93< Nollora a&itte the eAistence

of his secon &arria/eto 6eralinoG!;an

9:< Nollora an 6eralinos &arria/e has all

the essential re1uisites for valiit% eAcept for

the lac7 of capacit% of Nollora ue to hisprior &arria/e.!>

Fefore the trial an appellate courts, Nolloraput up his Musli& reli/ion as his sole

efense. ?e alle/e that his reli/ion allo2shi& to &arr% &ore than once. 6rantin/

arguendothat Nollora is inee of Musli&

faith at the ti&e of celebration of both&arria/es,'(Nollora cannot en% that both

&arria/e cere&onies 2ere not conucte in

accorance 2ith the Coe of Musli&Personal -a2s, or Presiential Decree No.

!($3.

Inee, rticle !39'< of the Coe of Musli&

Personal -a2s states that "i4n case of $

m$rr'$e bet-ee+ $ M)&('m $+ $ +o+/

M)&('m, &o(em+'e +ot '+ $%%or$+%e

-'t# M)&('m ($- or t#'& Coe, t#e

!$m'( Coe o t#e P#'('pp'+e&, or

E3e%)t'e Orer No. 209, in lieu of the

Civil Coe of the Philippines4$(( $pp(."

Nolloras reli/ious affiliation is not an issuehere. Neither is the clai& that Nolloras

&arria/es 2ere sole&ni*e accorin/ toMusli& la2. #hus, re/arless of hisprofesse reli/ion, Nollora cannot clai&

eAe&ption fro& liabilit% for the cri&e of

bi/a&%.'!

#here is therefore a reco/nition 2ritten intothe la2 itself that such a &arria/e, althou/h

voi ab initio, &a% still prouce le/al

conse1uences.&on/ these le/alconse1uences is incurrin/ cri&inal liabilit%

for bi/a&%. #o hol other2ise 2oul rener

the States penal la2s on bi/a&% co&pletel%nu/ator% 9(Adjective)Inefective, invalid or

utile.


4/19

hapless 2o&en 2ith the pro&ise of futurit%

an co&&it&ent.

"ERE!ORE, 2e 6ENthe petition.

:


SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 145228 !ebr)$r 08,

2004

LUCIO MORIGO CAC"O,petitioner,vs.

PEOPLE O! T"E P"ILIPPINES,responent.

ppellant -ucio Mori/o an -ucia

Farrete2ere &arrie on u/ust 3(,!==( at theglesia de -ilipina

.acionalat Cata/aan, Pilar, Fohol.

On Septe&ber $, !==(, -ucia

reporte bac7 to her 2or7 in Canaaleavin/ appellant -ucio behin.

On u/ust !=, !==!, -ucia file 2ith

the Ontario Court 96eneral Division

#hepetitioner &ove for suspension of the

arrai/n&ent on the /roun that the civil case

for 8uicial nullification of his &arria/e 2ith

-ucia pose a pre8uicial 1uestion in the

bi/a&% case. ?is &otion 2as /rante, butsubse1uentl% enie upon &otion for

reconsieration b% the prosecution.

T#e RTC*& R)('+

On u/ust ;, !==>, the R#C of Fohol hel

that the Court fins accuse -ucio Mori/o %

Cacho /uilt% be%on reasonable oubt of thecri&e of Fi/a&%

In convictin/ herein petitioner, the trial courtiscounte petitioners clai& that his first

&arria/e to -ucia 2as null an voi abinitio. ollo2in/0omingo v &ourt of

!ppeals,$the trial court rule that 2ant of a

vali &arria/e cere&on% is not a efense in

a char/e of bi/a&%. #he parties to a&arria/e shoul not be allo2e to assu&e

that their &arria/e is voi even if such be

the fact but &ust first secure a 8uicialeclaration of the nullit% of their &arria/e

before the% can be allo2e to &arr% a/ain.

nent 9(Preposition)Concerning, with regardto, about, in respect to, as to, insoar as,

inasmuch as< the Canaian ivorceobtaine

b% -ucia, the trial court cite'amire1 v2mur,=2hich hel that the court of a

countr% in 2hich neither of the spouses is

o&icile an in 2hich one or both spouses

4
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt9


5/19

&a% resort &erel% for the purpose of

obtainin/ a ivorce, has no 8urisiction to

eter&ine the &atri&onial status of theparties. s such, a ivorce /rante b% sai

court is not entitle to reco/nition an%2here.

Debun7in/ -ucios efense of /oo faith incontractin/ the secon &arria/e, the trial

court stresse that follo2in/People v

*itdu,!(ever%one is presu&e to 7no2 thela2, an the fact that one oes not 7no2 that

his act constitutes a violation of the la2 oes

not eAe&pt hi& fro& the conse1uences

thereof.

Seasonabl%, petitioner file an appeal 2ith

the Court of ppeals, oc7ete as C+6.R.

CR No. '(B((.

T#e RTC*& R)('+ o+ t#e C''( C$&e

Mean2hile, on October '3, !==B, or 2hileC+6.R. CR No. '(B(( 2as penin/ before

the appellate court, the trial court renere a

ecision in Civil Case No. >('(eclarin/the &arria/e bet2een -ucio an -ucia voi

ab initiosince no &arria/e cere&on%

actuall% too7 place. No appeal 2as ta7en

fro& this ecision, 2hich then beca&e finalan eAecutor%.

T#e CA*& R)('+

On October '!, !===, the appellate court

ecie C+6.R. CR No. '(B(( as follo2s

5?EREORE, finin/ no error in

the appeale ecision, the sa&e is

hereb% IRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.!!

In affir&in/ the assaile 8u/&ent ofconviction, the appellate court stressethat

the subse1uent eclaration of nullit% of

-ucios &arria/eto -ucia in Civil Case No.>('( %o)( +ot $%)'t L)%'o. #he reason is

that 2hat is sou/ht to be punisheb% rticle

3:=!'of the Revise Penal Coe '& t#e $%t

o %o+tr$%t'+ $ &e%o+ m$rr'$e beore

t#e 'r&t m$rr'$e #$ bee+ '&&o(e.

?ence, the C hel, the fact that the first&arria/e 2as voi fro& the be/innin/ is not

a vali efensein a bi/a&% case.

#he Court of ppeals also pointe out that

the ivorce ecree obtaine b% -ucia fro&

the Canaian court coul not be accorevaliit% in the Philippines, pursuant to

rticle !;!3of the Civil Coe an /iven the

fact that it is contrar% to public polic% in this

8urisiction. 0ner rticle !B!:of the Civil

Coe, a eclaration of public polic% cannotbe renere ineffectual b% a 8u/&ent

pro&ul/ate in a forei/n 8urisiction.

Petitioner &ove for reconsieration of theappellate courts ecision, contenin/ that

the octrine in3endiola v People,!;allo2s

&ista7e upon a ifficult 1uestion of la29such as the effect of a forei/n ivorce

ecree< to be a basis for /oo faith.

T#e I&&)e:

#o our &in, t#e pr'mor'$( '&&)eshoulbe 2hether or not petitioner co&&itte

bi/a&% an if so, 2hether his efense of

/oo faith is vali.

T#e SC*& R)('+

#he petitioner sub&its that he shoul not befaultefor rel%in/ in /oo faith upon the

ivorce ecree of the Ontario court. ?ehi/hli/hts the fact that he contracte thesecon &arria/e openl% an publicl%, 2hich

a person intent upon bi/a&% 2oul not be

oin/. #he petitioner further ar/ues that hislac7 of cri&inal intent is &aterial to a

conviction or ac1uittal in the instant case.

#he cri&e of bi/a&%, 8ust li7e other felonies

5
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt15


6/19

punishe uner the Revise Penal Coe, is

mala in se, an hence, /oo faith an lac7 of

cri&inal intent are allo2e as a co&pleteefense. ?e stresses that there is a ifference

bet2een the intent to co&&it the cri&e an

the intent to perpetrate the act. ?ence, itoes not necessaril% follo2 that his intention

to contract a secon &arria/e is tanta&ount

to an intent to co&&it bi/a&%.

or the responent, the Office of theSolicitor 6eneral 9OS6('(, see7in/ a 8uicialeclaration of nullit% of his &arria/e to

-ucia.

Fefore 2e elve into petitioners efense of/oo faith an lac7 of cri&inal intent, 2e

&ust first eter&ine 2hether all the

ele&ents of bi/a&% are present in this case.In3arbella4*obis v *obis,'(2e lai o2n

the ele&ents of bi/a&% thus

9!< the offener has been le/all%

&arrieG

9'< the first &arria/e has not beenle/all% issolve, or in case his or

her spouse is absent, the absent

spouse has not been 8uiciall%eclare presu&ptivel% eaG

93< he contracts a subse1uent

&arria/eG an

9:< the subse1uent &arria/e 2oulhave been vali ha it not been for

the eAistence of the first.

ppl%in/ the fore/oin/ test to the instant

case, 2e note that urin/ the penenc% ofC+6.R. CR No. '(B((, the R#C of Fohol

Franch !, hane o2n the follo2in/

ecision in Civil Case No. >('(, to 2it

5?EREORE, pre&ises consiere,8u/&ent is hereb% renere

ecreein/ the annul&ent of the

&arria/e entere into b% petitioner-ucio Mori/o an -ucia Farrete on

u/ust '3, !==( in Pilar, Fohol an

further irectin/ the -ocal Civil

Re/istrar of Pilar, Fohol to effect thecancellation of the &arria/e contract.

SO ORDERED.'!

#he trial court foun that there 2as no actual

&arria/e cere&on% perfor&e bet2een

-ucio an -ucia b% a sole&ni*in/ officer.Instea, 2hat transpire 2as a &ere si/nin/

of the &arria/e contract b% the t2o, 2ithoutthe presence of a sole&ni*in/ officer. #he

trial court thus hel that the &arria/e is voi

ab initio, in accorance 2ith rticles 3''an

:'3of the a&il% Coe. s the issentin/opinion in C+6.R. CR No. '(B((,

correctl% puts it, "#his si&pl% &eans that

there 2as no &arria/e to be/in 2ithG anthat such eclaration of nullit% retroacts to

the ate of the first &arria/e. In other 2ors,

for all intents an purposes, rec7one fro&the ate of the eclaration of the first

&arria/e as voi ab initioto the ate of the

celebration of the first &arria/e, the accuse2as, uner the e%es of the la2, never

&arrie."':#he recors sho2 that no appeal

2as ta7en fro& the ecision of the trial court
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/july2000/138509.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/july2000/138509.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/july2000/138509.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/july2000/138509.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_145226_2004.html#fnt24


7/19

in Civil Case No. >('(, hence, the ecision

ha lon/ beco&e final an eAecutor%.

#he first ele&ent of bi/a&% as a cri&ere1uires that the accuse &ust have been

le/all% &arrie. Fut in this case, le/all%spea7in/, the petitioner 2as never &arrie

to -ucia Farrete. #hus, there is no first&arria/e to spea7 of. 0ner the principle of

retroactivit% of a &arria/e bein/ eclare

voi ab initio, the t2o 2ere never &arrie"fro& the be/innin/." #he contract of

&arria/e is nullG it bears no le/al effect.

#a7in/ this ar/u&ent to its lo/ical

conclusion, for le/al purposes,petitioner

2as not &arrie to -ucia at the ti&e hecontracte the &arria/e 2ith Maria ececha.

#he eAistence an the valiit% of the first&arria/e bein/ an essential ele&ent of the

cri&e of bi/a&%, it is but lo/ical that a

conviction for sai offense cannot besustaine 2here there is no first &arria/e to

spea7 of. #he petitioner, &ust, perforce be

ac1uitte of the instant char/e.

In the instant case, ho2ever, no &arria/e

cere&on% at all 2as perfor&e b% a ul%authori*e sole&ni*in/ officer. Petitioner

an -ucia Farrete &erel% si/ne a &arria/econtract on their o2n. #he &ere private act

of si/nin/ a &arria/e contract bears no

se&blance to a vali &arria/e an thus,

nees no 8uicial eclaration of nullit%.

#he la2 abhors an in8ustice an the Court is

&anate to liberall% construe a penal

statute in favor of an accuse an 2ei/h

ever% circu&stance in favor of thepresu&ption of innocence to ensure that

8ustice is one. 0ner the circu&stances of

the present case, 2e hel that petitioner hasnot co&&itte bi/a&%. urther, 2e also fin

that 2e nee not tarr% on the issue of the

valiit% of his efense of /oo faith or lac7

of cri&inal intent, 2hich is no2 &oot an

acae&ic.

"ERE!ORE, the instant petition is6RN#ED. #he assaile ecision, ate

October '!, !=== of the Court of ppeals inC+6.R. CR No. '(B((, as 2ell as the

resolution of the appellate court ateSepte&ber ';, '(((, en%in/ herein

petitioners &otion for reconsieration, is

REVERSED an SE# SIDE. #hepetitioner -ucio Mori/o % Cacho is

C)0I##ED fro& the char/e of FI6MH

on the /roun that his /uilt has not beenproven 2ith &oral certaint%.

SO OR6ERE6.

!


8/19

;


SUPREME COURT

Manila

#?IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 1;


9/19

Petitioner also presente Norberto Fa/sic

9Fa/sic==>B, 2hich 2as

issue to rlino 6etalao an M%ra

Mabilan/an on anuar% '(, !==3.=

Fa/sic testifie that their office issues serial

nu&bers for &arria/e licenses an that the

nu&bers are issue chronolo/icall%.!(?e

testifie that the certification ate ul% !!,

'((3, 2as issue an si/ne b% -eoivina

Encarnacion, Re/istrar of the Municipalit%of Car&ona, Cavite, certif%in/ that Marria/e

-icense No. ==>==>B 2as issue for rlino

6etalao an M%ra Mabilan/an on anuar%

!=, !==3, an that their office ha not issue

an% other license of the sa&e serial nu&ber,

na&el% ==>==>B, to an% other person.!!

or her part, 6loria testifie on her o2n

behalf, an presente Reveren Mario Dau*,

tt%. -oren*o Sanche*, elicitas 6oo an

Ma% nn Ceriola.

Reveren Mario Dau* 9Rev. Dau*< testifie

that he 2as a &inister of the 6ospel an a

baran/a% captain, an that he is authori*e

to sole&ni*e &arria/es 2ithin the

Philippines.!'?e testifie that he sole&ni*e

the &arria/e of S%e *har bbas an

6loria 6oo at the resience of the brie on

anuar% =, !==3.!3?e state that the

2itnesses 2ere tt%. -oren*o Sanche* 9tt%.Sanche*< an Mar% nn Ceriola.!:?e

testifie that he ha been sole&ni*in/

&arria/es since !=$', an that he is fa&iliar

2ith the re1uire&ents.!;Rev. Dau* further

testifie that tt%. Sanche* /ave hi& the

&arria/e license the a% before the actual

2ein/, an that the &arria/e contract 2as

prepare b% his secretar%.!>fter the

sole&ni*ation of the &arria/e, it 2as

re/istere 2ith the -ocal Civil Re/istrar of

Manila, an Rev. Dau* sub&itte the

&arria/e contract an cop% of the &arria/elicense 2ith that office.!B

tt%. Sanche* testifie that he 2as as7e to

be the sponsor of the 2ein/ of S%e

bbas an 6loria 6oo b% the &other of the

brie, elicitas 6oo.!$?e testifie that he

re1ueste a certain )ualin to secure the

&arria/e license for the couple, an that this

)ualin secure the license an /ave the

sa&e to hi& on anuar% $, !==3.!=

?e furthertestifie that he i not 7no2 2here the

&arria/e license 2as obtaine.'(?e attene

the 2ein/ cere&on% on anuar% =, !==3,

si/ne the &arria/e contract as sponsor, an

2itnesse the si/nin/ of the &arria/e

contract b% the couple, the sole&ni*in/

officer an the other 2itness, Mar% nn

Ceriola.'!

elicitas 6oo testifie that 6loria 6oo is her

au/hter an S%e *har bbas is her son+

in+la2, an that she 2as present at the

2ein/ cere&on% hel on anuar% =, !==3

at her house.''She testifie that she sou/ht

the help of tt%. Sanche* at the Manila Cit%

?all in securin/ the &arria/e license, an

that a 2ee7 before the &arria/e 2as to ta7e

place, a &ale person 2ent to their house

2ith the application for &arria/e license.'3

#hree a%s later, the sa&e person 2ent bac7

to their house, sho2e her the &arria/elicense before returnin/ it to tt%. Sanche*

2ho then /ave it to Rev. Dau*, the

sole&ni*in/ officer.':She further testifie

that she i not rea all of the contents of

the &arria/e license, an that she 2as tol

that the &arria/e license 2as obtaine fro&

#
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt24


10/19

Car&ona.';She also testifie that a bi/a&%

case ha been file b% 6loria a/ainst S%e at

the Re/ional #rial Court of Manila,

evience b% an infor&ation for Fi/a&%

ate anuar% !(, '((3, penin/ before

Franch :B of the Re/ional #rial Court ofManila.'>

s to Mar% nn Ceriolas testi&on%, the

counsels for both parties stipulate that 9a==>B

2as issue, in violation of rticle = of the

a&il% Coe.33s the &arria/e 2as not one

of those eAe&pt fro& the license

re1uire&ent, an that the lac7 of a vali

&arria/e license is an absence of a for&al

re1uisite,the &arria/e of 6loria an S%e

on anuar% =, !==3 2as voi ab initio.

T#e R)('+ o t#e CA

#he C /ave creence to 6lorias

ar/u&ents, an /rante her appeal. It hel

that the certification of the Municipal Civil

Re/istrar faile to cate/oricall% state that a

ili/ent search for the &arria/e license of

6loria an S%e 2as conucte, an thus

1$
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt33


11/19

hel that sai certification coul not be

accoreprob$t'e $()e.3>#he CA r)(e

t#$t t#ere -$& &)'%'e+t te&t'mo+'$( $+

o%)me+t$r e'e+%e t#$t G(or'$ $+

Se #$ bee+ $('( m$rr'e $+ t#$t

t#ere -$& %omp('$+%e -'t# $(( t#ere)'&'te& ($' o-+ b ($-.3B

T#e I&&)e

2hether or not a vali &arria/e license ha

been issue for the couple. #he R#C hel

that no vali &arria/e license ha been

issue. #he C hel that there 2as a vali

&arria/e license.

T#e R)('+ o t#'& Co)rt

#here is no issue 2ith the essential

re1uisites uner rt. ' of the a&il% Coe,

nor 2ith the for&al re1uisites of the

authorit% of the sole&ni*in/ officer an the

conuct of the &arria/e cere&on%. Nor isthe &arria/e one that is eAe&pt fro& the

re1uire&ent of a vali &arria/e license

uner Chapter ', #itle I of the a&il% Coe.

#he resolution of this case, thus, hin/es on

2hether or not a vali &arria/e license ha

been issue for the couple. #he R#C hel

that no vali &arria/e license ha been

issue. #he C hel that there 2as a vali

&arria/e license.

5e fin the R#C to be correct in this

instance.

Responent 6loria faile to present the

actual &arria/e license, or a cop% thereof,

an relie on the &arria/e contract as 2ell

as the testi&onies of her 2itnesses to prove

the eAistence of sai license. To proe t#$t

+o &)%# ('%e+&e 2as issue, S%e turne to

the office of the Municipal Civil Re/istrar of

Car&ona, Cavite 2hich ha alle/el% issue

sai license.It 2as there that he re1ueste

certification that no such license 2as issue.In the case of Republic v. Court of ppeals:3

such certification 2as allo2e, as per&itte

b% Sec. '=, Rule !3' of the Rules of Court,

2hich reas

SEC. '$. Proof of lac7 of recor. K 2ritten

state&ent si/ne b% an officer havin/ the

custo% of an official recor or b% his

eput% that after ili/ent search, no recor

or entr% of a specifie tenor is foun to eAistin the recors of his office, acco&panie b%

a certificate as above provie, is a&issible

as evience that the recors of his office

contain no such recor or entr%.

In the case of Republic, in allo2in/ the

certification of the Civil Re/istrar of Pasi/

to prove the non+issuance of a &arria/e

license, the Court hel

#he above Rule authori*e the custoian of

the ocu&ents to certif% that espite ili/ent

search, a particular ocu&ent oes not eAist

in his office or that a particular entr% of a

specifie tenor 2as not to be foun in a

re/ister. s custoians of public ocu&ents,

civil re/istrars are public officers char/e

2ith the ut%, inter alia, of &aintainin/ a

re/ister boo7 2here the% are re1uire to

enter all applications for &arria/e licenses,

incluin/ the na&es of the applicants, theate the &arria/e license 2as issue an

such other relevant ata.::

#he Court hel in that case that the

certification issue b% the civil re/istrar

en8o%e probative value, as his ut% 2as to

11
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt44


12/19

&aintain recors of ata relative to the

issuance of a &arria/e license.

#he Municipal Civil Re/istrar of Car&ona,

Cavite, 2here the &arria/e license of 6loria

an S%e 2as alle/el% issue, issue acertification to the effect that no such

&arria/e license for 6loria an S%e 2as

issue, an that the serial nu&ber of the

&arria/e license pertaine to another couple,

rlino 6etalao an M%ra Mabilan/an.

certifie &achine cop% of Marria/e -icense

No. ==>==>B 2as presente, 2hich 2as

issue in Car&ona, Cavite, an inee, the

na&es of 6loria an S%e o not appear in

the ocu&ent.

In reversin/ the R#C, the C focuse on the

2orin/ of the certification, statin/ that it

i not co&pl% 2ith Section '$, Rule !3' of

the Rules of Court.

#he C euce that fro& the absence of

the 2ors "espite ili/ent search" in the

certification, an since the certification use

state that no &arria/e license appears to

have been issue, no ili/ent search ha

been conucte an thus the certification

coul not be /iven probative value.

#o 8ustif% that euction, the C cite the

case of Republic v. Court of ppeals.:;It is

2orth notin/ that in that particular case, the

Court, in sustainin/ the finin/ of the lo2er

court that a &arria/e license 2as lac7in/,

relie on the Certification issue b% the

Civil Re/istrar of Pasi/, 2hich &erel% statethat the alle/e &arria/e license coul not

be locate as the sa&e i not appear in

their recors. No2here in the Certification

2as it cate/oricall% state that the officer

involve conucte a ili/ent search, nor is

a cate/orical eclaration absolutel%

necessar% for Sec. '$, Rule !3' of the Rules

of Court to appl%.

0ner Sec. 39&No such

affir&ative evience 2as sho2n that the

Municipal Civil Re/istrar 2as laA in

perfor&in/ her ut% of chec7in/ the recors

of their office, thus the presu&ption &ust

stan. In fact, proof oes eAist of a ili/entsearch havin/ been conucte, as Marria/e

-icense No. ==>=>B 2as inee locate an

sub&itte to the court. #he fact that the

na&es in sai license o not correspon to

those of 6loria an S%e oes not overturn

the presu&ption that the re/istrar conucte

a ili/ent search of the recors of her office.

It is tellin/ that 6loria faile to present their

&arria/e license or a cop% thereof to the

court. She faile to eAplain 2h% the

&arria/e license 2as secure in Car&ona,

Cavite, a location 2here, a&ittel%, neither

part% resie. She too7 no pains to appl% for

the license, so she is not the best 2itness to

testif% to the valiit% an eAistence of sai

license.Neither coul the other 2itnesses

she presente prove the eAistence of the

&arria/e license, as none of the& applie

for the license in Car&ona, Cavite. ?er

&other, elicitas 6oo, coul not even testif%as to the contents of the license, havin/

a&itte to not reain/ all of its contents.

tt%. Sanche*, one of the sponsors, 2ho&

6loria an elicitas 6oo approache for

assistance in securin/ the license, a&itte

not 7no2in/ 2here the license ca&e fro&.

12
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_183896_2013.html#fnt46


13/19

#he tas7 of appl%in/ for the license 2as

ele/ate to a certain )ualin, 2ho coul

have testifie as to ho2 the license 2as

secure an thus i&peache the certification

of the Municipal Civil Re/istrar as 2ell as

the testi&on% of her representative. s6loria faile to present this )ualin, the

certification of the Municipal Civil Re/istrar

still en8o%s probative value.

It is also note that the sole&ni*in/ officer

testifie that the &arria/e contract an a

cop% of the &arria/e license 2ere sub&itte

to the -ocal Civil Re/istrar of Manila. #hus,

a cop% of the &arria/e license coul have

si&pl% been secure fro& that office ansub&itte to the court. ?o2ever, 6loria

ineAplicabl% faile to o so, further

2ea7enin/ her clai& that there 2as a vali

&arria/e license issue for her an S%e.

#o bolster its rulin/, the C cite other

evience to support its conclusion that

6loria an S%e 2ere valil% &arrie. #o

1uote the C

Moreover, the recor is replete 2ith

evience, testi&onial an ocu&entar%, that

appellant an appellee have been valil%

&arrie an there 2as co&pliance 2ith all

the re1uisites lai o2n b% la2. Foth parties

are le/all% capacitate to &arr%. certificate

of le/al capacit% 2as even issue b% the

E&bass% of Pa7istan in favor of appellee.

#he parties herein /ave their consent freel%.

ppellee a&itte that the si/nature above

his na&e in the &arria/e contract 2as his.Several pictures 2ere presente sho2in/

appellant an appellee, before the

sole&ni*in/ officer, the 2itnesses an other

&e&bers of appellants fa&il%, ta7en urin/

the &arria/e cere&on%, as 2ell as in the

restaurant 2here the lunch 2as hel after the

&arria/e cere&on%. Most tellin/ of all is

EAhibit ";+C" 2hich sho2s appellee si/nin/

the Marria/e Contract.

A A A A

#he parties have co&porte the&selves as

husban an 2ife an has sic4 one

offsprin/, liea ati&a 6oo bbas, 2ho

2as born on !; une !==3. It too7 appellee

&ore than ten 9!(< %ears before he file on

(! u/ust '((3 his Petition for Declaration

of Nullit% of Marria/e uner rticle : of the

a&il% Coe. 5e ta7e serious note that sai

Petition appears to have been institute b%

hi& onl% after an Infor&ation for Fi/a&%9EAhibit "!"< ate !( anuar% '((3 2as

file a/ainst hi& for contractin/ a secon or

subse1uent &arria/e 2ith one Ma. Cora*on

9Mar%a&< #. Fuenaventura. 5e are not

rea% to re2ar 9appellee< b% eclarin/ the

nullit% of his &arria/e an /ive hi& his

freeo& an in the process allo2 hi& to

profit fro& his o2n eceit an perfi%.;(

ll the evience cite b% the C to sho2

that a 2ein/ cere&on% 2as conucte an

a &arria/e contract 2as si/ne oes not

operate to cure the absence of a vali

&arria/e license. rticle : of the a&il%

Coe is clear 2hen it sa%s, "#he absence of

an% of the essential or for&al re1uisites shall

rener the &arria/e voi ab initio, eAcept as

state in rticle 3;9'


14/19

s to the &otive of S%e in see7in/ to annul

his &arria/e to 6loria, it &a% 2ell be that

his &otives are less than pure, that he see7s

to evae a bi/a&% suit. Fe that as it &a%, the

sa&e oes not &a7e up for the failure of the

responent to prove that the% ha a vali&arria/e license, /iven the 2ei/ht of

evience presente b% petitioner. #he lac7 of

a vali &arria/e license cannot be attribute

to hi&, as it 2as 6loria 2ho too7 steps to

procure the sa&e. #he la2 &ust be applie.

s the &arria/e license, a for&al re1uisite,

is clearl% absent, the &arria/e of 6loria an

S%e is voi ab initio.

5?EREORE, in li/ht of the fore/oin/, thepetition is hereb% 6RN#ED. #he assaile

Decision ate March !!, '(($ an

Resolution ate ul% ':, '(($ of the Court

of ppeals in C+6.R. CV No. $>B>( are

hereb% REVERSED an SE# SIDE. #he

Decision of the Re/ional #rial Court,

Franch !(=, Pasa% Cit% ate October ;,

'((; in Civil Case No. (3+(3$'+CM

annullin/ the &arria/e of petitioner 2ith

responent on anuar% =, !==3 is hereb%

REINS##ED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

>


SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 201081 )( ANGAAN,Petitioner,

vs.

>ENAMIN >ANGAAN, R.,

Responent.

T#e A+te%ee+t !$%t&

Fen8a&in Fan/a%an, r. 9Fen8a&in< alle/e

that on !( Septe&ber !=B3, he &arrie

*ucena le/re 9*ucena< in Caloocan

Cit%. #he% ha three chilren, na&el%,

Ri*al%n, E&&a&%lin, an Fen8a&in III.

On B March !=$', in orer to appease her

father, Sall% 6oFan/a%an 9Sall%


15/19

m$rr'$e to S$(( -$& b'$mo)& $+ t#$t

't ($%?e t#e orm$( re)'&'te& to $ $('

m$rr'$e.

fter Fen8a&in presente his evience,

Sall% file a e&urrer 9(noun)%law& a ormalob'ection to an opponent(s pleadings< to

evience 2hich the trial court enie. Sall%

file a &otion for reconsieration 2hich the

trial court also enie. Sall% file a petition

for certiorari before the Court of ppeals

an as7e for the issuance of a te&porar%

restrainin/ orer anLor in8unction 2hich the

Court of ppeals never issue. Sall% then

refuse to present an% evience before the

trial court citin/ the penenc% of her petitionbefore the Court of ppeals. #he trial court

/ave Sall% several opportunities to present

her evience on '$ ebruar% '(($, !( ul%

'(($, : Septe&ber '(($, !! Septe&ber

'(($, ' October '(($, '3 October '(($, an

'$ Nove&ber '(($. Despite repeate

2arnin/s fro& the trial court, Sall% still

refuse to present her evience, pro&ptin/

the trial court to consier the case sub&itte

for ecision.

T#e 6e%'&'o+ o t#e Tr'$( Co)rt

In a Decision:ate '> March '((=, the trial

court rule in favor of Fen8a&in. #he trial

court /ave 2ei/ht to the certification ate

'! ul% '((: fro& the Pasi/ -ocal Civil

Re/istrar, 2hich 2as confir&e urin/ trial,

that onl% Marria/e -icense Series Nos.

>>:$!(( to >>:$!;( 2ere issue for the

&onth of ebruar% !=$' an the purporteMarria/e -icense No. N+(B;>$ 2as not

issue to Fen8a&in an Sall%.;#he trial

court rule that the &arria/e 2as not

recore 2ith the local civil re/istrar an the

National Statistics Office because it coul

not be re/istere ue to Fen8a&ins

subsistin/ &arria/e 2ith *ucena.

#he trial court rule that the &arria/e

bet2een Fen8a&in an Sall% 2as not

bi/a&ous. #he trial court rule that thesecon &arria/e 2as voi not because of the

eAistence of the first &arria/e but because of

other causes, particularl%, the lac7 of a

&arria/e license.?ence, bi/a&% 2as not

co&&itte in this case.

#he trial court further rule that Sall% acte

in ba faithbecause she 7ne2 that Fen8a&in

2asm$rr'eto *ucena.

#he ispositive portion of the trial courts

ecision reas

CCORDIN6-H, the &arria/e of

FENMIN FN6HN, R. an S--H

S. 6O on March B, !=$' at Santolan, Pasi/,

Metro Manila is hereb% eclare N0-- an

VOID F INI#IO. It is further eclare

NONEIS#EN#.

T#e 6e%'&'o+ o t#e Co)rt o Appe$(&

In its !B u/ust '(!! Decision, the Court of

ppeals partl% /rante the appeal. #he

Court of ppeals rule that the trial court

i not err in sub&ittin/ the case for

ecision. #he Court of ppeals note that

there 2ere siA resettin/s of the case, all

&ae at the instance of Sall%, for the initial

reception of evience, an Sall% 2as ul%

2arne to present her evience on the neAthearin/ or the case 2oul be ee&e

sub&itte for ecision. ?o2ever, espite the

2arnin/, Sall% still faile to present her

evience. She insiste on presentin/

Fen8a&in 2ho 2as not aroun an 2as not

15
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt5


16/19

subpoenae espite the presence of her other

2itnesses.

#he Court of ppeals re8ecte Sall%s

alle/ation that Fen8a&in faile to prove his

action for eclaration of nullit% of &arria/e.#he Court of ppeals rule that Fen8a&ins

action 2as base on his prior &arria/e to

*ucena an there 2as no evience that the

&arria/e 2as annulle or issolve before

Fen8a&in contracte the secon &arria/e

2ith Sall%. #he Court of ppeals rule that

the trial court co&&itte no error in

eclarin/ Fen8a&ins &arria/e to Sall% null

an voi.

inall%, the Court of ppeals rule that Sall%

faile to present clear an convincin/

evience that 2oul sho2 bias an pre8uice

on the part of the trial 8u/e that 2oul

8ustif% his inhibition fro& the case.

T#e I&&)e&

Sall% raise the follo2in/ issues before this

Court

9!< 5hether the Court of ppeals

co&&itte a reversible error in

affir&in/ the trial courts rulin/ that

Sall% ha 2aive her ri/ht to present

evienceG

9'< 5hether the Court of ppeals


affir&in/ the trial courts ecision

eclarin/ the &arria/e bet2eenFen8a&in an Sall% null an voi ab

initio an non+eAistentG an

93< 5hether the Court of ppeals


affir&in/ 2ith &oification the trial

courts ecision re/arin/ the

propert% relations of Fen8a&in an

Sall%.

#he Rulin/ of this Court

#he petition has no &erit.

@$(''t o t#e M$rr'$e bet-ee+

>e+$m'+ $+ S$((

Sall% alle/es that both the trial court an the

Court of ppeals reco/ni*e her &arria/e to

Fen8a&inbecause a &arria/e coul not be

noneAistent an, at the sa&e ti&e, null an

voi ab initio. Sall% further alle/es that ifshe 2ere allo2e to present her evience,

she 2oul have proven her &arria/e to

Fen8a&in. #o prove her &arria/e to

Fen8a&in, Sall% as7e this Court to consier

that in ac1uirin/ real properties, Fen8a&in

liste her as his 2ife b% eclarin/ he 2as

"&arrie to" herG that Fen8a&in 2as the

infor&ant in their chilrens birth

certificates 2here he state that he 2as their

fatherG an that Fen8a&in introuce her to

his fa&il% an friens as his 2ife. In

contrast, Sall% clai&s that there 2as no real

propert% re/istere in the na&es of

Fen8a&in an *ucena. Sall% further alle/es

that Fen8a&in 2as not the infor&ant in the

birth certificates of his chilren 2ith

*ucena.

irst, Fen8a&ins &arria/e to *ucena on !(

Septe&ber !=B3 2as ul% establishe before

the trial court, evience b% a certifie truecop% of their &arria/e contract. t the ti&e

Fen8a&in an Sall% entere into a purporte

&arria/e on B March !=$', the &arria/e

bet2een Fen8a&in an *ucena 2as vali

an subsistin/.

1


17/19

On the purporte &arria/e of Fen8a&in an

Sall%, #eresita Oliveros 9Oliverosan "a si&ulate &arria/e, at the

instance of Sall%, intene to cover her up

fro& eApecte social hu&iliation co&in/

fro& relatives, friens an the societ%

especiall% fro& her parents seen as Chinese

conservatives."!BIn short, it 2as a fictitious

&arria/e.

#he fact that Fen8a&in 2as the infor&ant in

the birth certificates of Fernice an Fentle%2as not a proof of the &arria/e bet2een

Fen8a&in an Sall%. #his Court notes that

Fen8a&in 2as the infor&ant in Fernices

birth certificate 2hich state that Fen8a&in

an Sall% 2ere &arrie on $ March !=$'!$

2hile Sall% 2as the infor&ant in Fentle%s

birth certificate 2hich also state that

Fen8a&in an Sall% 2ere &arrie on $

March !=$'.!=Fen8a&in an Sall% 2ere

supposel% &arrie on B March !=$' 2hichi not &atch the ates reflecte on the birth

certificates.

5e see no inconsistenc% in finin/ the

&arria/e bet2een Fen8a&in an Sall% null

an voi ab initio an, at the sa&e ti&e,

non+eAistent. 0ner rticle 3; of the a&il%

Coe, a &arria/e sole&ni*e 2ithout a

license, eAcept those covere b% rticle 3:

2here no license is necessar%, "shall be voi

fro& the be/innin/." In this case, the

&arria/e bet2een Fen8a&in an Sall% 2as

sole&ni*e 2ithout a license. It 2as ul%

establishe that no &arria/e license 2as

issue to the& an that Marria/e -icense

No. N+(B;>$ i not &atch the &arria/e

license nu&bers issue b% the local civil

re/istrar of Pasi/ Cit% for the &onth of

ebruar% !=$'. #he case clearl% falls uner

Section 3 of rticle 3;'(2hich &ae their

&arria/e voi ab initio. #he &arria/ebet2een Fen8a&in an Sall% 2as also non+

eAistent. ppl%in/ the /eneral rules on voi

or ineAistent contracts uner rticle !:(= of

the Civil Coe, contracts 2hich are

absolutel% si&ulate or fictitious are

"ineAistent an voi fro& the be/innin/."'!

1!
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt21


18/19

#hus, the Court of ppeals i not err in

sustainin/ the trial courts rulin/ that the

&arria/e bet2een Fen8a&in an Sall% 2as

null an voi ab initio an non+eAistent.

EAcept for the &oification in theistribution of properties, the Court of

ppeals affir&e in all aspects the trial

courts ecision an rule that "the rest of

the ecision stans."''5hile the Court of

ppeals i not iscuss bi/a&ous

&arria/es, it can be /leane fro& the

ispositive portion of the ecision eclarin/

that "the rest of the ecision stans" that the

Court of ppeals aopte the trial courts

iscussion that the &arria/e bet2eenFen8a&in an Sall% is not

bi/a&ous.5wphi#he trial court state

On 2hether or not the parties &arria/e is

bi/a&ous uner the concept of rticle 3:=

of the Revise Penal Coe, the &arria/e is

not bi/a&ous. It is re1uire that the first or

for&er &arria/e shall not be null an voi.

#he &arria/e of the petitioner to *ucena

shall be assu&e as the one that is vali,

there bein/ no evience to the contrar% an

there is no trace of invaliit% or irre/ularit%

on the face of their &arria/e contract.

?o2ever, if the secon &arria/e 2as voi

not because of the eAistence of the first

&arria/e but for other causes such as lac7 of

license, the cri&e of bi/a&% 2as not

co&&itte. In People v. De -ara C, ;!

O.6., :(B=4, it 2as hel that 2hat 2as

co&&itte 2as contractin/ &arria/e a/ainst

the provisions of la2s not uner rticle 3:=but rticle 3;( of the Revise Penal Coe.

Concluin/, the &arria/e of the parties is

therefore not bi/a&ous because there 2as no

&arria/e license. #he arin/ an repeate

stan of responent that she is le/all%

&arrie to petitioner cannot, in an% instance,

be sustaine. ssu&in/ that her &arria/e to

petitioner has the &arria/e license, %et the

sa&e 2oul be bi/a&ous, civill% or

cri&inall% as it 2oul be invaliate b% a

prior eAistin/ vali &arria/e of petitioner

an *ucena.'3

or bi/a&% to eAist, the secon or

subse1uent &arria/e &ust have all the

essential re1uisites for valiit% eAcept for the

eAistence of a prior &arria/e.':In this case,

there 2as reall% no subse1uent &arria/e.

Fen8a&in an Sall% 8ust si/ne a purporte

&arria/e contract 2ithout a &arria/e

license. #he suppose &arria/e 2as not

recore 2ith the local civil re/istrar an theNational Statistics Office. In short, the

&arria/e bet2een Fen8a&in an Sall% i

not eAist. #he% live to/ether an

represente the&selves as husban an 2ife

2ithout the benefit of &arria/e.

Propert% Relations Fet2een Fen8a&in an

Sall%

#he Court of ppeals correctl% rule that the

propert% relations of Fen8a&in an Sall% is

/overne b% rticle !:$ of the a&il% Coe

2hich states

rt. !:$. In cases of cohabitation not fallin/

uner the precein/ rticle, onl% the

properties ac1uire b% both of the parties

throu/h their actual 8oint contribution of

&one%, propert%, or inustr% shall be o2ne

b% the& in co&&on in proportion to their

respective contributions. In the absence ofproof to the contrar%, their contributions an

corresponin/ shares are presu&e to be

e1ual. #he sa&e rule an presu&ption shall

appl% to 8oint eposits of &one% an

eviences of creit.

1"
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt24


19/19

If one of the parties is valil% &arrie to

another, his or her share in the co+o2nership

shall accrue to the absolute co&&unit% of

con8u/al partnership eAistin/ in such vali

&arria/e. If the part% 2ho acte in ba faith

is not valil% &arrie to another, his or hershare shall be forfeite in the &anner

provie in the last para/raph of the

precein/ rticle.

#he fore/oin/ rules on forfeiture shall

li7e2ise appl% even if both parties are in ba

faith.

Fen8a&in an Sall% cohabitate 2ithout the

benefit of &arria/e. #hus, onl% theproperties ac1uire b% the& throu/h their

actual 8oint contribution of &one%, propert%,

or inustr% shall be o2ne b% the& in

co&&on in proportion to their respective

contributions. #hus, both the trial court an

the Court of ppeals correctl% eAclue the

3B properties bein/ clai&e b% Sall% 2hich

2ere /iven b% Fen8a&ins father to his

chilren as avance inheritance. Sall%s

ns2er to the petition before the trial court

even a&itte that "Fen8a&ins late father

hi&self conve%e a nu&ber of properties to

his chilren an their respective spouses

2hich inclue Sall% A A A."';

s re/ars the seven re&ainin/ properties,

2e rule that the ecision of the Court of

ppeals is &ore in accor 2ith the evience

on recor. Onl% the propert% covere b%

#C# No. >!B'' 2as re/istere in the na&es

of Fen8a&in an Sall% as spouses.'>#heproperties uner #C# Nos. >!B'( an

!=($>( 2ere in the na&e of Fen8a&in'B2ith

the escriptive title "&arrie to Sall%." #he

propert% covere b% CC# Nos. $B$' an

$B$3 2ere re/istere in the na&e of Sall%'$

2ith the escriptive title "&arrie to

Fen8a&in" 2hile the properties uner #C#

Nos. N+!=3>;> an ';3>$! 2ere re/istere

in the na&e of Sall% as a sin/le iniviual.

5e have rule that the 2ors "&arrie to"precein/ the na&e of a spouse are &erel%

escriptive of the civil status of the

re/istere o2ner.'=Such 2ors o not prove

co+o2nership. 5ithout proof of actual

contribution fro& either or both spouses,

there can be no co+o2nership uner rticle

!:$ of the a&il% Coe.3(

5?EREORE, 2e IRM the !B u/ust

'(!! Decision an the !: March '(!'

Resolution of the Court of ppeals in C+

6.R. CV No. =:''>.

SO ORDERED.

1#
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_201061_2013.html#fnt30

Persons Marriage Case 1

Documents

Transcript of Persons Marriage Case 1