689 SCRA 646 (109 OG 7469) Civil Law Family Code Bigamy Void Ab Initio

Marriage Lack of a Marriage License

Remedial Law Evidence Probative Value Public Records
In January 1993, Syed Azhar Abbas was invited to the house of Felicitas Goo, mother of
Gloria Goo. He said he was asked to participate in a ceremony which was meant to
welcome him to the Philippines (Abbas is a Pakistani). He said he did not know that the
ceremony was actually his marriage with Gloria Goo.
Later, Gloria filed a bigamy case against Abbas. Abbas allegedly married a certain Maria
Corazon Buenaventura.
To avoid the bigamy case, Abbas filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
to Gloria Goo.
To prove the validity of their marriage, Gloria presented a marriage contract signed by
Abbas as well as the solemnizing officer who celebrated their marriage. The marriage
contract contained the alleged marriage license issued to Abbas.
Abbas presented a certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar which states that the
marriage license, based on its number, indicated in the marriage contract was never issued
to Abbas but to someone else.
The RTC ruled in favor of Abbas. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC on the
ground that there was no diligence to search for the real source of the marriage license
issued to Abbas (for it could be that the marriage license was issued in another
municipality).
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between Abbas and Goo is void ab initio.
HELD: Yes. Their marriage lacked one of the essential requisites of marriage which is the
issuance of a valid marriage license.
The Court of Appeals is wrong in reversing the RTC. The Local Civil registrars certification
enjoyed probative value as her duty was to maintain records of data relative to the issuance
of a marriage license. There is a presumption of regularity of official acts in favor of the local
civil registrar. Gloria was not able to overcome this presumption hence it stands to favor
Abbas.
The fact that Abbas did sign the marriage contract does not make it conclusive that there
was in fact a valid marriage license issued to him nor does it cure the fact that no marriage
license was issued to Abbas. 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.
Article 35(3) of the Family Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without a license
is void from the beginning.
Abbas vs Abbas

Facts: This is a case filed by Syed Azhar Abbas, petitioner, for the declaration of nullity
of his marriage with Gloria Goo-Abbas on the ground of absence of marriage license, as
provided for in Article 4 of the Family Code.
Syed and Gloria were married in Taiwan on August 9, 1992. When they arrived in the
Philippines on December 1992, a ceremony was conducted between them solemnized
by Rev. Mario Dauz and witnessed by Atty. Lorenzo Sanchez and Mary Ann Ceriola.
Present also is Felicitas Goo, mother-in-law of Syed. During the ceremony, he and
Gloria signed a document. Syed claim that he did not know the nature of the ceremony
until Gloria told him that it was a marriage.

In the marriage contract of Syed and Gloria, it is stated that Marriage License No
9969967, issued at Carmona, Cavite was proven by the MCR being issued to other
couple.

Issue: Whether or not the marriage of Syed and Gloria is valid.

Ruling: No. As the marriage of Syed and Gloria was solemnized on January 9,
1993, the Family Code is the applicable law, particularly Articles 3, 4 and 35 (3).
Article 3 provides the formal requisites of marriage. Article 4 provides the effects of the
absence of the essential and formal requisites. And Article 35, Paragraph 3 provides
that those marriages which are solemnized without a license are void from the
beginning in exception to those covered by the preceding chapter.

Gloria failed to present actual marriage license or copy relied on the marriage contract
and testimonies to prove the existence of the said license.

Thus, the marriage of Syed and Gloria is void ab initio.

Ninal vs Bayadog
Ninal vs. Bayadog
328 SCRA 122

FACTS:

Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. They had 3
children namely Babyline, Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito
to Teodulfa, the latter died on April 24, 1985 leaving the children under the guardianship of
Engrace Ninal. 1 year and 8 months later, Pepito and Norma Badayog got married without
any marriage license. They instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived together for at
least 5 years exempting from securing the marriage license. Pepito died in a car accident
on February 19, 1977. After his death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage
license.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?

2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration of the nullity of
Pepitos marriage after his death?

HELD:

The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the marriage license. They
cannot be exempted even though they instituted an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit
for at least 5 years because from the time of Pepitos first marriage was dissolved to the
time of his marriage with Norma, only about 20 months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his
first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living with
each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year period
cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his marriage to Norma
is still void.

Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and cannot be the source of rights. It
can be questioned even after the death of one of the parties and any proper interested party
may attack a void marriage