ALCANTARA vs ALCANTARA
the same is a mere irregularity that does not affect
QUESTION: AAA filed a petition for annulment
of marriage against respondent BBB alleging that
he and BBB, were married using a marriage
license issued from Carmona, Cavite. However,
he and BBB did not go to Carmona, Cavite, to
apply for a marriage license. Assuming a
marriage license from Carmona, Cavite, was
issued to them, neither he nor the BBB was a
resident of the place. Furthermore, the
certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of
Carmona, Cavite, cannot be given weight because
the certification states that “Marriage License
number 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. AAA
and Miss BBB” but their marriage contract bears
the number 7054033 for their marriage license
number. Was the marriage between petitioner and
respondent void ab initio?
ANSWER: No. A valid marriage license is a
requisite of marriage, the absence of which
renders the marriage void ab initio. To be
considered void on the ground of absence of a
marriage license, the law requires that the
absence of such marriage license must be
apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very
least, supported by a certification from the local
civil registrar that no such marriage license was
issued to the parties. In this case, the marriage
contract between the petitioner and respondent
reflects a marriage license number. A
certification to this effect was also issued by the
local civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite. The
certification moreover is precise in that it
specifically identified the parties to whom the
marriage license was issued, namely AAA and
BBB, further validating the fact that a license was
in fact issued to the parties herein. This
certification enjoys the presumption that official
duty has been regularly performed and the
issuance of the marriage license was done in the
regular conduct of official business. Hence,
petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a
marriage license to impugn the validity of his
marriage. Issuance of a marriage license despite
the fact that the fact that neither of the parties are
residents of the city or municipality which issued
the validity of the marriage. An irregularity in any
of the formal requisites of marriage does not
affect its validity but the party or parties
responsible for the irregularity are civilly,
criminally and administratively liable.
MALLION vs ALCANTARA
QUESTION: Petitioner AAA filed with the
regional trial court seeking a declaration of nullity
of his marriage to respondent BBB on the ground
of psychological incapacity. The trial court
denied the petition. Likewise, it was dismissed in
the Court of Appeals. After such decision,
petitioner filed another petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage with the regional trial court
alleging that his marriage with respondent was
null and void due to the fact that it was celebrated
without a valid marriage license. Respondent
filed an answer with motion to dismiss on the
ground of res judicata and forum shopping.
Petitioner on the other hand, contend that the two
petitions brought by him seeking the declaration
of nullity of his marriage are anchored on separate
causes of action for the evidence necessary to
sustain the first petition which was anchored on
the alleged psychological incapacity of
respondent is different from the evidence
necessary to sustain the present petition which is
anchored on the purported absence of a marriage
license. Is the contention of AAA valid?
ANSWER: No. res judicata in its concept as
"conclusiveness of judgment" requires the
concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the
former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on
the merits; and (4) there is — between the first
and the second actions — identity of parties, of
subject matter, and of causes of action. AAA,
however, forgets that he is simply invoking
different grounds for the same cause of action. By
definition, a cause of action is the act or omission
by which a party violates the right of another. In
both petitions, petitioner has the same cause —
the declaration of nullity of his marriage to
respondent. What differs is the ground upon
which the cause of action is predicated. These
grounds cited by petitioner essentially split the
various aspects of the pivotal issue that holds the
key to the resolution of this controversy, that is,
the actual status of petitioner and respondent's
marriage.
GO-BANGAYAN vs BANGAYAN
QUESTION: AAA and BBB signed a simulated
marriage contract without a marriage license,
while BBB, knowing AAA has a subsisting
marriage, assured him that the marriage contract
would not be registered. During the end of their
relationship BBB filed criminal actions for
bigamy against AAA, using their simulated
marriage contract as evidence. AAA, in turn, filed
a petition for declaration of a non-existent
marriage and/or declaration of nullity of marriage
before the trial court on the ground that his
marriage to BBB was bigamous and that it lacked
the formal requisites to a valid marriage. Is the
contention of AAA valid?
ANSWER: Yes. 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 case, the marriage between
Benjamin and Sally was solemnized without a
license. It was duly established that no marriage
license was issued to them. The case clearly falls
under Section 3 of Article 35 which made their
marriage void ab initio. The marriage 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.” Hence, the marriage between AAA
and BBB was null and void ab initio and non-
existent.
On whether or not the parties’ marriage is
bigamous under the concept of Article 349 of the
Revised Penal Code, the marriage is not
bigamous. It is required that the first or former
marriage shall not be null and void or the second
marriage was void not because of the existence of
the first marriage but for other causes. For bigamy
to exist, the second or subsequent marriage must
have all the essential requisites for validity except
for the existence of a prior marriage. In this case,
there was really no subsequent marriage. AAA
and BBB just signed a purported marriage
contract without a marriage license. In short, the
marriage between AAA and BBB did not exist.
They lived together and represented themselves
as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage.
TUPAL vs ROJO
QUESTION: AAA filed a complaint in Office of
the Court Administrator against respondent Judge
BBB, for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct
and for gross ignorance of the law. Judge BBB
allegedly solemnized marriages without the
required marriage license. He instead notarized
affidavits of cohabitation and issued them to the
contracting parties. Is the action of the
complainant tenable?
ANSWER: Yes, the action is tenable for Judge
BBB is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
Although municipal trial court and municipal
circuit trial court judges may act as notaries
public. However, they may do so only in their ex
officio capacities. They may notarize documents,
contracts, and other conveyances only in the
exercise of their official functions and duties as
provided in Circular No. 1-90. Furthermore, they
may only act as notaries public ex officio only if
lawyers or notaries public are lacking in their
courts’ territorial jurisdiction. They must certify
as to the lack of lawyers or notaries public when
notarizing documents ex officio. Hence, failing to
satisfy these requirements, Judge BBB cannot act
both as the notary public while being the
solemnizing officer.
Secondly, it is good to note that before
performing the marriage ceremony, according to
NCC, the judge, as solemnizing officer, must
personally examine the affidavit of cohabitation
as to the parties having lived together as husband
and wife for at least 5 years and the absence of
any legal impediment to marry each other. The
judge must also execute a sworn statement that he
personally ascertained the parties’ qualifications
to marry and found no legal impediment to the
marriage. Clearly, Notarizing affidavits of
cohabitation is inconsistent with the duty to
examine the parties' requirements for marriage. If
the solemnizing officer notarized the affidavit of
cohabitation, he cannot objectively examine and
review the affidavit 's statements before
performing the marriage ceremony. Should there
be any irregularity or false statements in the
affidavit of cohabitation he notarized, he cannot
be expected to admit that he solemnized the
marriage despite the irregularity or false
allegation. Following these tasks of a judge as a
solemnizing officer, it is conclusive that being a
notary public to those affidavits of cohabitation,
is not an ex officio capacity.
VDA. DE CHUA vs CA
QUESTION: During his lifetime, Don AAA
lived out of wedlock with private respondent
BBB and begot two children ABA and BAB.
Eventually, Don AAA died intestate in Davao
City. BBB then filed a Petition for the declaration
of Heirship and guardianship over the person and
properties of ABA and BAB, their illegitimate
children. Subsequently, herein petitioner CCC,
representing to be the surviving spouse of Don
AAA, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
improper venue. Petitioner alleged that at the time
of the decedent’s death Davao City was his
residence, hence, the Regional Trial Court of
Davao City is the proper forum. BBB however
contends that CCC is not the surviving spouse of
the late Don AAA but a pretender to the estate of
the latter since there is no proof of their marriage.
Is CCC’s claim that she is the surviving spouse of
the deceased is tenable?
ANSWER: No. According to jurisprudence, the
best evidence to prove an existence of a valid
marriage is a valid marriage contract which the
CCC failed to produce. It is clear from the
foregoing that the movant failed to establish the
truth of her allegation that she was the lawful wife
of the decedent. Be that as it may, petitioner has
no legal standing to file the motion to dismiss as
she is not related to the deceased, nor does she
have any interest in his estate as creditor or
otherwise.
SY vs CA
QUESTION: AAA and BBB got married at the
Satanic Church of Jayoloism. After some time,
BBB became cold and neglectful of his duties as
a husband. Later on, an incident transpired where
AAA was domestically violated by BBB. BBB
then filed for the declaration of absolute nullity of
their marriage citing psychological incapacity.
The Trial Court and Appellate Court denied her
petition. On her petition to the SC, she assailed
for the first time that there was no marriage
license during their marriage. Decide with
reasons.
ANSWER: The action of AAA is tenable.
According to SC, although they have repeatedly
ruled that litigants cannot raise an issue for the
first time on appeal, as this would contravene the
basic rules of fair play and justice, in a number of
instances, they have relaxed observance of
procedural rules, noting that technicalities are not
ends in themselves but exist to protect and
promote substantive rights of litigants. Hence,
when substantial justice plainly requires,
exempting a particular case from the operation of
technicalities should not be subject to cavil. A
marriage license is a formal requirement; its
absence renders the marriage void ab initio.
Under Article 80 of the Civil Code. those
solemnized without a marriage license, save
marriages of exceptional character, are void ab
initio. This is clearly applicable in this case. The
remaining issue on the psychological incapacity
of private respondent need no longer detain the
Court. It is mooted by the conclusion that the
marriage of petitioner to respondent is void ab
initio for lack of a marriage license at the time
their marriage was solemnized.
TRINIDAD vs CA
QUESTION: AAA and BBB were the parents of
three (3) children, namely, ABA, BAB and ABB.
When AAA, survived by the above named
children, he left four (4) parcels of land, all
situated at Barrio Dimasaksak, Kalibo Aklan.
CCC, claimed to be the legitimate son of the late
ABA. Sometime after the marriage, he demanded
from BAB and ABB to partition the land into
three equal shares and to give him the (1/3)
individual share of his late father, but BAB and
ABB refused. CCC filed, an action for partition
of four parcels of land. BAB and ABB denied that
plaintiff was the son of the late ABA. BAB and
ABB contended that ABA was single when he
died, before plaintiff’s birth. BAB and ABB also
denied that CCC had lived with them, and
claimed that the parcels of land described in the
complaint had been in their possession since the
death of their father AAA and that they had not
given CCC a share in the produce of the land.
To prove his filiation and ABA’s marriage to his
mother, CCC presented his baptismal certificate
in which ABA and his mother were named as the
child’s father and mother. He also attached some
family pictures where ABA was present. He
further secured a certification from the Office of
the Civil Registrar of Aklan that all records of
births, deaths and marriages were lost, burned or
destroyed during the Japanese occupation of said
municipality. In lieu of this, he presented several
witnesses to prove his position, XXX and YYY.
On the other hand, defendants also presented
witnesses who testified that ABA was not married
when he died. Decide with reasons.
ANSWER: The partition of the late AAA real
properties requires preponderant proof that CCC
is a co-owner or co-heir of the ABA’s estate. His
right as a co-owner would, in turn, depend on
whether he was born during the existence of a
valid and subsisting marriage between his mother
and his putative father ABA. According to SC,
when the question of whether a marriage has been
contracted arises in litigation, said marriage may
be proven by relevant evidence. To prove the fact
of marriage, the following would constitute
competent evidence: (1) the testimony of a
witness to the matrimony, (2) the couple’s public
and open cohabitation as husband and wife after
the alleged wedlock, (3) the birth and the
baptismal certificates of children born during
such union, and the mention of such nuptial in
subsequent documents.
In the case at bar, petitioner secured a
certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar
of Aklan that all records of births, deaths and
marriages were lost, burned or destroyed during
the Japanese occupation of said municipality.
Although the marriage contract is considered the
primary evidence of the marital union,
petitioner’s failure to present is not proof that no
marriage took place, as other forms of relevant
evidence may take its place. In place of a
marriage contract, two witnesses were presented
by petitioner: XXX and YYY. It further gives rise
to the disputable presumption that a man and a
woman deporting themselves as husband and
wife have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage. Petitioner also presented his baptismal
certificate in which ABA and his mother were
named as the child’s father and mother, and
family pictures. The totality of petitioner’s
positive evidence clearly preponderates over
private respondent’s self- serving negations.
REPUBLIC vs CA
QUESTION: AAA, with her parents unaware,
contracted a civil marriage with BBB. They did
not immediately live together and it was only
upon AAA found out that she was pregnant that
they decided to live together wherein the said
cohabitation lasted for only 4 months. Thereafter,
they parted ways and AAA filed a petition
seeking a declaration for the nullity of her
marriage. Her lawyer then found out that there
was no marriage license issued prior to the
celebration of their marriage proven by the
certification issued by the Civil Registrar.
However, BBB filed a petition to dismissed
AAA’s petition contending that it is only
grounded on her testimony. Is the contention of
the BBB valid?

ANSWER: No. The certification issued by the

Civil Registrar unaccompanied by any
circumstances of suspicion sufficiently prove that
the office did not issue a marriage license to the
contracting parties. Albeit the fact that the
testimony of AAA is not supported by any other
witnesses is not a ground to deny her petition
because of the peculiar circumstances of her case
being a “secret marriage.” Under the
circumstances of the case, the documentary and
testimonial evidence presented by AAA
sufficiently established the absence of the subject
marriage license.