Sy Vs CA Gr127263

2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 330 2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 330
case from the operation of technicalities should not be

subject to cavil. In our view, the case at bar requires that
we address the issue of the validity of the marriage
between Filipina and Fernando which petitioner claims is
void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license, in
order to arrive at a just resolution of a deeply seated and
violent conflict between the parties. Note, however, that
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
here the pertinent facts are not disputed; and what is
Sy vs. Court of Appeals required now is a declaration of their effects according to
existing law.
*
G.R. No. 127263. April 12, 2000. Husband and Wife; Marriage; Marriage License; A
marriage license is a formal requirement; its absence
FILIPINA Y. SY, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE renders the marriage void ab initio.—November 15, 1973,
COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE also appears as the date of marriage of the parents in both
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN FERNANDO, their son’s and daughter’s birth certificates, which are also
PAMPANGA, BRANCH XLI, and FERNANDO attached as Annexes “B” and “C” in the petition for
SY, respondents. declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial
court, and thereafter marked as Exhibits “B” and “C” in
the course of the trial. These pieces of evidence on record
Actions; Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; Although
plainly and indubitably show that
the Supreme Court has 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, _______________
the observance of procedural rules may be relaxed, noting
that technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist to * SECOND DIVISION.
protect and promote the substantive rights of litigants.—
Although we have repeatedly ruled that litigants cannot
raise an issue for the first time on appeal, as this would 551
contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice, in a

number of instances, we have relaxed observance of
procedural rules, noting that technicalities are not ends in
VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000 551
themselves but exist to protect and promote substantive
rights of litigants. We said that certain rules ought not to be Sy vs. Court of Appeals
applied with severity and rigidity if by so doing, the very
reason for their existence would be defeated. Hence, when
on the day of the marriage ceremony, there was no
substantial justice plainly requires, exempting a particular
marriage license. A marriage license is a formal
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a659ff37a3786cdb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a659ff37a3786cdb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/19
requirement; its absence renders the marriage void ab QUISUMBING, J.:

initio. In addition, the marriage contract shows that the 1
marriage license, numbered 6237519, was issued in For review is the decision dated May 21, 1996 of
Carmona, Cavite, yet, neither petitioner nor private the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44144,
respondent ever resided in Carmona. which affirmed the deci-
Evidence; Pleadings and Practice; Although the
marriage certificate, the marriage license and other pieces _____________
of documentary evidence were only photocopies, the fact 1 CA Records, at 51-59.

that these have been examined and admitted by the trial
court, with no objections having been made as to their 552
authenticity and due execution, means that these
documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts
contained therein.—We note that their marriage certificate
and marriage license are only photocopies. So are the birth Sy vs. Court of Appeals
certificates of their son Frederick and daughter Farrah
2
Sheryll. Nevertheless, these documents were marked as sion of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando,
3
Exhibits during the course of the trial below, which shows Pampanga, denying the petition for declaration of
that these have been examined and admitted by the trial absolute nullity of marriage of the spouses Filipina
court, with no objections having been made as to their Sy and Fernando Sy.
authenticity and due execution. Likewise, no objection was Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent
interposed to petitioner’s testimony in open court when she Fernando Sy contracted marriage on November 15,
affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their 1973 at the 4Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in
marriage was on November 15, 1973. We are of the view, Quezon City. Both were then 22 years old. Their
therefore, that having been admitted in evidence, with the union was blessed with two children, Frederick and
adverse party failing to timely object thereto, these Farrah Sheryll who were born 5on July 8, 1975 and
documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts February 14, 1978, respectively.
contained therein. The spouses first established their residence in
Singalong, Manila, then in Apalit, Pampanga, and
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of later at San Matias, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. They
the Court of Appeals. operated a lumber6 and hardware business in Sto.
Tomas, Pampanga.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
On September 15, 1983, Fernando left their
Benjamin H. Razon for petitioner.
conjugal dwelling. Since then, the spouses lived
Cariño & Gargantos Law Office for private
separately, and their two children were in the custody
respondent.
of their mother. However, their son Frederick

9
transferred to his father’s residence at Masangkay, spouses. The trial court
10
also granted custody of the
Tondo, Manila on May 7
15, 1988, and from then on, children to Filipina.
lived with his father. In May 1988, Filipina filed a criminal action for
On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition for attempted parricide against her husband, docketed as
legal separation, docketed as Civil Case No. 7900 Criminal Case No. 88-68006, before the Regional
before the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Trial Court of Manila. Filipina testified that in the
Pampanga. Later, upon motion of petitioner, the afternoon of May 15, 1988, she went to the dental
action was later amended to a petition for separation clinic at Masangkay, Tondo, Manila, owned by her
of property on the grounds that her husband husband but operated by his mistress, to fetch her
abandoned her without just cause; that they have son and bring him to San Fernando, Pampanga.
been living separately for more than one year; and While she was talking to her son, the boy ignored her
that they voluntarily entered into a Memorandum of and continued playing with the family computer.
Agreement dated September 29, 1983, containing the Filipina got mad, took the computer away from her
rules that would govern 8
the dissolution of their son, and started spanking him. At that instance,
conjugal partnership. Judgment was rendered Fernando pulled Filipina away from their son, and
dissolving their conjugal partnership of gains and punched her in the different parts of her body.
Filipina also claimed that her husband started
_________________ choking her when she fell on the floor, and released
her only when he thought she was dead. Filipina
2 Records, at 136-143. suffered from hematoma and contusions on different
3 Id. at 1-5. parts of her body as a result of the blows inflicted by
4 Exh. A; Id. at 6. her husband, evidenced by a Medical Certificate
5 Exhs. B & C; Id. at 7-8. issued by a certain Dr. James Ferraren. She 11said it
6 Id. at 136. was not the first time Fernando maltreated her.
7 Ibid. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, however, in
12
8 Id. at 10-11. its decision dated April 26, 1990, convicted
Fernando only of the lesser crime of slight physical
553
injuries, and sentenced him to 20 days imprisonment.
Petitioner later filed a new action for legal
VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000 553 separation against private respondent, docketed as
Civil Case No. 8273, on the following grounds: (1)
Sy vs. Court of Appeals
repeated physical violence; (2) sexual infidelity; (3)
attempt by respondent against her life; and (4)
approving a regime of separation of properties based abandonment of her by her husband without
on the Memorandum of Agreement executed by the justifiable cause for more than one year. The
Regional Trial Court
9
_______________ the celebration of15 their marriage and became

manifest thereafter.
9 Exh. E, Id. at 10-18.
The Regional Trial 16Court of San Fernando,
10 Id. at 18.
Pampanga, in its decision dated December 9, 1993,
11 Id. at 23-24.
denied the petition of Filipina Sy for the declaration
12 Exh. G; Id. at 23-26.
of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando. It
554 stated that the alleged acts of the respondent, as cited
by petitioner, do not constitute psychological
incapacity which may warrant the declaration of
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED absolute nullity of their marriage.
Sy vs. Court of Appeals Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which
affirmed17 the decision of the trial court. In the
of San Fernando, Pampanga, in its decision dated
13
decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 21,
December 4, 1991, granted the petition on the 1996, it ruled that the testimony of petitioner
grounds of repeated physical violence and sexual concerning respondent’s purported psychological
infidelity, and issued a decree of legal separation. It
awarded custody of their daughter Farrah Sheryll to ______________
petitioner, and their son Frederick to respondent.14
13 Exh. H; Id. at 27-46.
On August 4, 1992, Filipina filed a petition for
14 Id. at 1-5.
the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to
15 Id. at 3.
Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity.
16 Id. at 136-143.
She points out that the final judgment rendered by
17 Supra, note 1.
the Regional Trial Court in her favor, in her petitions
for separation of property and legal separation, and 555
Fernando’s infliction of physical violence on her
which led to the conviction of her husband for slight
physical injuries are symptoms of psychological VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000 555
incapacity. She also cites as manifestations of her Sy vs. Court of Appeals
husband’s psychological incapacity the following:
(1) habitual alcoholism; (2) refusal to live with her incapacity falls short of the quantum of evidence
without fault on her part, choosing to live with his required to nullify a marriage celebrated with all the
mistress instead; and (3) refusal to have sex with her, formal and essential requisites of law. Moreover, the
performing the marital act only to satisfy himself. Court of Appeals held that petitioner failed to show
Moreover, Filipina alleges that such psychological that the alleged psychological incapacity of
incapacity of her husband existed from the time of respondent had existed at the time of the celebration
of their marriage in 1973. It reiterated the finding of STATING THAT APPELLANT FAILED
the trial court that the couple’s marital problems TO SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED
surfaced only in 1983, or almost ten years from the UNDESIRABLE ACTUATIONS OF
date of the celebration of their marriage. And prior to APPELLEE HAD EX-
their separation in 1983, they were living together
harmoniously. Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed
_______________
the judgment of the lower court which it found to be18
in accordance with law and the evidence on record.
19
18 Id. at 59.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which 19 Id. at 60-64.
the Court of Appeals 20
denied in its resolution dated 20 Id. at 76.
November 21, 1996. 21
21 Rollo, pp. 10-55.
Hence, this appeal by certiorari wherein
petitioner now raises the following issues: 556
1) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS MANIFESTLY
OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT ON Sy vs. Court of Appeals
THE DATE OF THE CELEBRATION OF
THE PARTIES’ MARRIAGE ON ISTED OR WERE PRESENT AT THE
NOVEMBER 15, 1973, NOT DISPUTED TIME THEIR MARRIAGE WAS
BY RESPONDENT FERNANDO, THERE CELEBRATED IN 1973;
WAS NO MARRIAGE LICENSE 4) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE
THERETO; COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
2) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AFFIRMING THE ERRONEOUS
MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS BY RULING OF THE LOWER COURT THAT
STATING THAT THE GROUNDS THERE IS A REDEEMING ATTITUDE
RELIED UPON BY APPELLANT [herein SHOWN TO THE COURT BY
petitioner] DO NOT CONSTITUTE RESPONDENT FERNANDO WITH
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY AS RESPECT TO HIS CHILDREN AND
WOULD JUSTIFY NULLIFICATION OF ALSO BELIEVES THAT
HER MARRIAGE TO APPELLEE [herein RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE
respondent]; PARTIES IS NOT A REMOTE
3) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE POSSIBILITY WHICH IS ERRONEOUS;
COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AND
MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS BY
5) WHETHER OR NOT THE CASE OF 557

SANTOS V. COURT OF APPEALS (240
22
SCRA 20) IS APPLICABLE HERETO.
VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000 557
In sum, two issues are to be resolved: Sy vs. Court of Appeals
1) Whether or not the marriage between to protect and promote substantive rights of litigants.
petitioner and private respondent is void We said that certain rules ought not to be applied
from the beginning for lack of a marriage with severity and rigidity if by so doing, the very
license at the time of the ceremony; and reason for their existence would be defeated.
24
2) Whether or not private respondent is Hence, when substantial justice plainly requires,
psychologically incapacitated at the time of exempting a particular case from the operation of
25
said marriage celebration to warrant a technicalities should not be subject to cavil. In our
declaration of its absolute nullity. view, the case at bar requires that we address the
issue of the validity of the marriage between Filipina
Petitioner, for the first time, raises the issue of the and Fernando which petitioner claims is void from
marriage being void for lack of a valid marriage the beginning for lack of a marriage license, in order
license at the time of its celebration. It appears that, to arrive at a just resolution of a deeply seated and
according to her, the date of the actual celebration of violent conflict between the parties. Note, however,
their marriage and the date of issuance of their that here the pertinent facts are not disputed; and
marriage certificate and marriage license are what is required now is a declaration of their effects
different and incongruous. according to existing law.
Although we have repeatedly ruled that litigants Petitioner states that though she did not
cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal, as categorically state in her petition for annulment of
this would
23
contravene the basic rules of fair play and marriage before the trial court that the incongruity in
justice, in a number of instances, we have relaxed the dates of the marriage license and the celebration
observance of procedural rules, noting that of the marriage itself would lead to the conclusion
technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist that her marriage to Fernando was void from the
beginning, she points out that these critical dates
_______________ were contained in the documents she submitted
before the court. The date of issue of the marriage
22 Id. at 31 license and marriage certificate, September 17, 1974,
23 Sumbad. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106060, June 21, is contained in their marriage contract which was
1999, p. 23, 308 SQRA 575; Modina vs. CA, G.R. No. 109355, attached as Annex “A” in her petition for declaration
October 29, 1999, p. 13, 317 SCRA 696; citing Roman Catholic of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court,
Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 145 (1997). and thereafter marked as Exhibit “A” in the course of
26
26
the trial. The date of celebration of their marriage at and thereafter marked29
as Exhibits “B” and “C” in the
Our Lady of Lourdes, Sta. Teresita Parish, on course of the trial. These pieces of evidence on
November 15, 1973, is admitted both by petitioner record plainly and indubitably show that on the day
and private respondent, as stated in paragraph three of the marriage ceremony, there was no marriage
of petitioner’s petition for the declaration of absolute license. A marriage license is a formal requirement;
nullity of marriage before the trial court, and private its absence renders the marriage void ab initio. In
addition, the marriage contract shows that the
_______________ marriage license, numbered 6237519, was issued in
Carmona, Cavite, yet, neither petitioner
30
nor private
24 Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of Appeals, respondent ever resided in Carmona.
266 SCRA 187, 198 (1997); Mauna vs. Civil Service Commission, Carefully reviewing the documents and the
232 SCRA 388, 398 (1994). pleadings on record, we find that indeed petitioner
25 GSIS vs. CA, at 198, citing Aguilar vs. Court of Appeals, 250 did not expressly state in her petition before the trial
SCRA 371 (1995). court that there was incongruity between the date of
26 Exhibit A, Records, p. 6; Rollo, p. 72. the actual celebration of their marriage and the date
of the issuance of their marriage license. From the
558
documents she presented, the marriage license was
issued on September 17, 1974, almost one year after
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the ceremony took place on November 15, 1973. The
ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was
Sy vs. Court of Appeals
indeed contracted without a marriage license.
27 Nowhere do we find private respondent denying31
respondent’s answer admitting it. This fact was also these dates on record. Article 80 of the Civil Code
affirmed by petitioner, in open court,28 on January 22, is
1993, during her direct examination, as follows:
ATTY. RAZON: In the last hearing, you said that _______________

you
27 Records, at 1 and 53.
were married on November 15, 1973? 28 TSN, 22 January 1993, p. 4.
FILIPINA SY: Yes, Sir. 29 Records, pp. 7 & 8; Exh. A, Rollo, p. 72.
30 Rollo, at 20.
31 Art. 80. The following marriages shall be void from the
November 15, 1973, also appears as the date of
beginning:
marriage of the parents in both their son’s and
daughter’s birth certificates which are also attached 559
as Annexes “B” and “C in the petition for declaration
of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court,
VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000 559 (2) By the provisions of this Code; and
Sy vs. Court of Appeals (3) By the local customs.
ART. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements,

clearly applicable in this case. There being no claim agree upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal
of an exceptional character, the purported marriage partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other
between petitioner and private respondent could not regime. In the absence of marriage settlements, or when the
be 32classified among those enumerated in Articles 72- regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of
79 of the Civil Code. We property as established in this Code shall govern.
ART. 76. In order that any modification in the marriage
_________________ settlements may be valid, it must be made before the celebration
of the
xxx
(3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, save 560
marriages of exceptional character;
xxx
32 ART. 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties
to the conjugal union or commits acts which tend to bring danger, Sy vs. Court of Appeals
dishonor or injury to the other or to the family, the aggrieved party
may apply to the court for relief. thus conclude that under Article 80 of the Civil
ART. 73. Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, Code, the marriage between petitioner and private
occupation, business or activity without the consent of the other. respondent is void from the beginning.
The latter may object only on valid,’ serious, and moral grounds. We note that their marriage certificate and
In case of disagreement, the court shall decide whether or not: marriage license are only photocopies. So are the
birth certificates of their son Frederick and daughter
(1) The objection is proper, and
Farrah Sheryll. Nevertheless, these documents were
(2) Benefit has accrued to the family prior to the objection or
marked as Exhibits during the course of the trial
thereafter. If the benefit accrued prior to the objection, the
below, which shows that these have been examined
resulting obligation shall be enforced against the separate
and admitted by the trial court, with no objections
property of the spouse who has not obtained consent.
having been made as to their authenticity and due
The foregoing provisions shall not prejudice the rights of
execution. Likewise, no objection was interposed to
creditors who acted in good faith.
petitioner’s testimony in open court when she
ART. 74. The property relations between husband and wife
affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of
shall be governed in the following order:
their marriage was on November 15, 1973. We are of
the view, therefore, that having been admitted in
(1) By marriage settlements executed before the marriage; evidence, with the adverse party failing to timely
object thereto, these documents are deemed 33

marriage license at the time their marriage was
sufficient proof of the facts contained therein. solemnized.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
_________________ Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San
Fernando, Pampanga, dated December 9, 1993 as
marriage, subject to the provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 well as the Decision promulgated on May 21, 1996
and 136. by the Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated
ART. 77. The marriage settlements and any modification November 21, 1996 in CA-G.R. No. 44144 are set
thereof shall be in writing, signed by the parties and executed aside. The marriage celebrated on November 15,
before the celebration of the marriage. They shall not prejudice 1973 between petitioner Filipina Yap and private
third persons unless they are registered in the local civil registry respondent Fernando Sy is hereby declared void ab
where the marriage contract is recorded as well as in the proper initio for lack of a marriage license at the time of
registries of property. celebration. No pronouncement as to costs.
ART. 78. A minor who according to law may contract marriage SO ORDERED.
may also enter into marriage settlements, but they shall be valid
only if the persons designated in Article 14 to give consent to the Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena and
marriage are made parties to the agreement, subject to the De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
provisions of Title DC of this Code.
ART. 79. For the validity of any marriage settlements executed Petition granted, judgment set aside.
by a person upon whom a sentence of civil interdiction has been
Notes.—“Secret marriage” is a legally non-
pronounced or who is subject to any other disability, it shall be
existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil
indispensable for the guardian appointed by a competent court to
marriage celebrated without the knowledge of the
be made a party thereto.
relatives and/or friends of either or both of the
33 See also Son vs. Son, 251 SCRA 556 (1995); Tison vs. CA,
contracting parties. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals,
276 SCRA 582 (1997); Quebral vs. CA, 252 SCRA 353 (1996).
236 SCRA 257 [1994])
561 A judge who solemnizes a marriage without the
required marriage license dismally fails to live up to
his commitment to be the embodiment of
VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000 561 competence, integrity and independence. (Moreno
Sy vs. Court of Appeals vs. Bernabe, 246 SCRA 120 [1995])
——o0o——
The remaining issue on the psychological incapacity
of private respondent need no longer detain us. It is 562
mooted by our conclusion that the marriage of
petitioner to respondent is void ab initio for lack of a
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 330
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a659ff37a3786cdb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/19

Sy Vs CA Gr127263

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sy Vs CA Gr127263

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 330 2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 330

case from the operation of technicalities should not be

contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice, in a

requirement; its absence renders the marriage void ab QUISUMBING, J.:

of documentary evidence were only photocopies, the fact 1 CA Records, at 51-59.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a659ff37a3786cdb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/19 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a659ff37a3786cdb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/19

_______________ the celebration of15 their marriage and became

1) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE

5) WHETHER OR NOT THE CASE OF 557

ATTY. RAZON: In the last hearing, you said that _______________

Sy vs. Court of Appeals (3) By the local customs.

ART. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements,

object thereto, these documents are deemed 33

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like