Syed Azhar Abbas v.

Gloria Goo Abas

G.R. No. 183896; January 30, 2013
ARTICLE 35(3)

FACTS:
At the trial court, Syed, a Pakistani citizen, testified that he met Gloria, a Filipino citizen, in
Taiwan in 1991, and they were married on August 9, 1992 at the Taipei Mosque in Taiwan. He
arrived in the Philippines in December of 1992. On January 9, 1993, he was at his mother-inlaws residence when his mother-in-law arrived with two men. He testified that he was told that
he was going to undergo some ceremony, one of the requirements for his stay in the Philippines,
but was not told of the nature of said ceremony. During the ceremony he and Gloria signed a
document. He claimed that he did not know that the ceremony was a marriage until Gloria told
him later. He further testified that he did not go to Carmona, Cavite to apply for a marriage
license, and that he had never resided in that area.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage was valid.
HELD:
There is no issue with the essential requisites under Art. 2 of the Family Code, nor with the
formal requisites of the authority of the solemnizing officer and the conduct of the marriage
ceremony. Nor is the marriage one that is exempt from the requirement of a valid marriage
license under Chapter 2, Title I of the Family Code. The resolution of this case, thus, hinges on
whether or not a valid marriage license had been issued for the couple. The RTC held that no
valid marriage license had been issued. The CA held that there was a valid marriage license.
We find the RTC to be correct in this instance.
The Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, where the marriage license of Gloria and
Syed was allegedly issued, issued a certification to the effect that no such marriage license for
Gloria and Syed was issued, and that the serial number of the marriage license pertained to
another couple, Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan. A certified machine copy of Marriage
License No. 9969967 was presented, which was issued in Carmona, Cavite, and indeed, the
names of Gloria and Syed do not appear in the document.
All the evidence cited by the CA to show that a wedding ceremony was conducted and a
marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license.
Article 4 of the Family Code is clear when it says, The absence of any of the essential or formal
requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2). Article 35(3)
of the Family Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is void from the
beginning, except those exempt from the license requirement under Articles 27 to 34, Chapter 2,
Title I of the same Code. Again, this marriage cannot be characterized as among the exemptions,
and thus, having been solemnized without a marriage license, is void ab initio.

Sally Go-Bangayan v. Benjamin Bangayan, Jr.

G.R. No. 201061; July 3, 2013
ARTICLE 35(3)

FACTS:
Benjamin and Sally lived together as husband and wife, althoug Benjamin had a prior existing
marriage. Sallys father was against the relationship so in order to appease her father, Sally
brought Benjamin to an office in Pasig City where they signed a purported marriage contract.
Benjamin and Sally-s cohabitation produced two children, Bernice and Bently. During their
cohabitation, they acquired properties.
The relationship of Benjamin and Sally ended. Shen then filed criminal actions for bigamy and
falsification of public documents against Benjamin, using their simulated marriage contract as
evidence. Benjamin filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marraige and/or declaration
of nullity of marriage before the trial court on the ground that his marriage to Sally was
bigamous and that it lacked the formal requisites to a valid marriage. Benjamin also asked the
trial court for the partition of the properties he acquired with Sally in accordance with Article 148
of the Family Code. The trial court also ruled that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was
not bigamous. On the issue of partition, the trial court ruled that Sally could not claim the 37
properties she named in her answer as part of her conjugal properties with Benjamin. It was ruled
that Sally was not legally married to Benjamin.
The Court of Appeals partly granted the appeal. The Court of Appeals ruled tha Benjamins
action was based on his prior marraige to Azucena and there was no evidence that the marriage
was annulled or dissolved before Benjamin contracted the second marriage with Sally.
ISSUE:
Is the marriage between Banjamin and Sally is null and void ab initio and non-existent?
HELD:
Yes. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally is null and void ab initio and, at the same time,
non-existent. Under Article 35 of the Family Code, a marriage solemnized without a license,
except those covered by Article 34 where no license is necessary, shall be void from the
beginning. In this, it was duly extablished that no marraige license was issued to them and that
their marriage license did not match the marriage license numbers issued by the local civil
registrar of Pasig City. The mariage between Benjamin and Sally was also non-existent.
Applying the general rules on void or inexistent contracts under Article 1409 of the Civil Code,
contracts which are absolutely simulated or fictitious are inexistent and void from the beginning.

Republic of the Philippines v. Cesar Encelan

G.R. No. 170022; January 9, 2013
ARTICLE 36

FACTS:
This petition for review on certiorari challenging the decision of the CA affirming the RTCs
Decision finding the marriages null and void due to psychological incapacity that resulted in her
gross infidelity: (1) Lolitas unwarranted refusal to perform her marital obligations to Cesar; and
(2) Lolitas wilfull and deliberate act of abandoning the conjugal dwelling.
Facts show that respondent Cesar married Lolita on August 35, 1979. While working in Saudi
Arabia, he learned that Lolita had been in an illicit affair with Alvin Perez. Sometime in 1991,
Lolita allegedly left the conjugal hom with her childern and lived with Alvin. Since then, Cesar
and Lolita had been separated. On June 16, 1995, Cesar filed with the RTC a petition against
Lolita for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage based on Lolitas psychological
incapacity.
The RTC declared Cesars marriage to Lolita void, finding sufficient basis to declare Lolita
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The CA affirmed
the decision.
ISSUE:
Are the parties psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations?
HELD:
No. Article 36 of the Family Code governs psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration
of nullity of marriage. In interpreting this provision, we have repeatedly stressed that
psychological incapacity contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of
and to assume the basic marital obligation not merely the refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less
ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.
In this case, Cesars testimony failed to prove Lolitas alleged psychological incapacity. Sexual
infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling, even if true, do not necessarily constitute
psychological incapacity; these are simply grounds for legal separation. To constitute
psychological incapacity, it must be shown that unfaithfulness and abandonment are
manifestations of a disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse from
discharging the essential marital obligations. No evidence on record exists to support Cesars
allegation that Lolitas infidelity and abandonment were manifestations of any psychological
illness. Thus, the CA committed reversible error when it affirmed the decision of the RTC.