Abbas vs Abbas G.R. No.

183896, January 30, 2013

Facts:

● Syed Azhar Abbas filed a case to annul his marriage with Gloria Goo-Abbas due to the
absence of a marriage license, as required by Article 4 of the Family Code.
● Syed and Gloria got married in Taiwan on August 9, 1992, and later held a ceremony in
the Philippines in December 1992.
● The Philippines ceremony was conducted by Rev. Mario Dauz and witnessed by Atty.
Lorenzo Sanchez and Mary Ann Ceriola, with Felicitas Goo, Syed's mother-in-law,
present.
● During the ceremony, Syed and Gloria signed a document. Syed claimed he didn't
realize it was a marriage ceremony until Gloria told him.
● The marriage contract mentioned a Marriage License No. 9969967, supposedly issued
in Carmona, Cavite, but it was later found to belong to another couple.
Issue:

The main question is whether the marriage between Syed and Gloria is legally valid.
Ruling:

● No, the marriage of Syed and Gloria is not valid.

● The applicable law is the Family Code, particularly Articles 3, 4, and 35 (3).
● Article 3 outlines the formal requirements for marriage.
● Article 4 explains the consequences of not meeting these essential requirements.
● Article 35, Paragraph 3 states that marriages conducted without a license are void from
the start, with exceptions not applicable in this case.
● Gloria failed to provide evidence of a valid marriage license, despite references in the
marriage contract.
● As a result, the marriage between Syed and Gloria is considered void from the
beginning.
SALLY GO-BANGAYAN vs. BENJAMIN BANGAYAN, JR. CASE DIGEST
G.R. No. 201061, July 3, 2013, CARPIO, J.

FACTS:

● Benjamin and Sally developed a romantic relationship in 1979.

● Sally’s father was against the relationship.
● Sally and Benjamin signed a purported marriage contract without a marriage license.
● Sally 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 marriage and/or declaration of
nullity of marriage, stating that his marriage to Sally was bigamous and lacked the formal
requisites of a valid marriage.
● Benjamin asked for the partition of properties acquired with Sally under Article 148 of the
Family Code.
● A total of 44 registered properties became the subject of the partition.
● The trial court ruled that the marriage was not recorded due to Benjamin’s existing
marriage, making it void from the beginning.
● The trial court also applied Article 148 to determine property rights.
● Sally claimed 37 properties were excluded as they were advance inheritance.
● The Court of Appeals affirmed this, and only one property was included in their
co-ownership.
ISSUES:

● Is the marriage between Benjamin and Sally void due to the absence of a marriage
license?
● Does Article 148 govern Benjamin and Sally’s property relations?
● Did Benjamin commit bigamy?
HELD:

● Yes. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally is void from the beginning because it
was solemnized without a marriage license, falling under Article 35 of the Family Code.
●
● Yes. Article 148 governs Benjamin and Sally’s property relations since they cohabitated
without marriage. Only properties acquired through their actual joint contributions of
money, property, or industry shall be owned in common in proportion to their respective
contributions. Their contributions are presumed equal, but properties given by
Benjamin’s father as advance inheritance were excluded.
●
● No. The marriage was not bigamous. The first marriage to Azucena is presumed valid,
as there is no evidence to the contrary. The second marriage, between Benjamin and
Sally, did not exist because they signed a marriage contract without a license and did not
 record it with the authorities. Benjamin did not commit bigamy as the second marriage
lacked essential requisites for validity.

Morimoto vs morimoto
Facts:

● Rosario was introduced to Yoshio with the idea of simulating a marriage for her to
acquire a Japanese Visa.
● On December 5, 2007, they signed a blank marriage certificate at Manila City Hall with
the assurance that it would not be registered.
● Later, when Rosario sought a Certificate of No Marriage, she discovered that a
Certificate of Marriage had been registered on December 5, 2007, with a ceremony
officiated by Rev. Roberto Espiritu and a marriage license issued by the Office of the
Civil Registrar of San Juan.
● Rosario filed a petition for the nullity of marriage in 2009, claiming that no actual
marriage took place and that there was no application for a marriage license. She
provided evidence to support her claim.
● The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) denied her petition.
Issue:

The main question is whether the registered marriage between Rosario and Yoshio should be
declared null and void.
Ruling:

● Yes, the marriage should be declared null and void because it was simulated and lacked
essential and formal marriage requirements.
● Rosario's claims are convincing and supported by evidence, including a certification from
the Office of the Civil Registrar stating that they mistakenly certified a marriage between
the parties.
● The presumption of regularity in official duty works in favor of Rosario's claim, as no
countervailing proof shows diligence in verifying the marriage.
● The registered marriage was a fraud intended to acquire a visa, and validating it would
endorse transactional marriages with nefarious purposes.
● The original fraud was the simulation of marriage, making the registered marriage null
and void.

Republic vs. Dayot

Facts:
 ● On November 24, 1986, Jose and Felisa got married in Pasay City through a sworn
affidavit, claiming they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and
were of legal age.
● Jose later married Rufina Pascual on August 31, 1990.
● On June 3, 1993, Felisa filed a bigamy case against Jose.
● On July 7, 1993, Jose filed a Complaint to Annul/Nullify his marriage with Felisa, arguing
it was a sham, no marriage ceremony took place, and his consent was obtained through
fraud.
● The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the complaint, ruling that Jose and
Felisa's marriage was valid.
● Jose appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that his marriage to Felisa was void from
the beginning due to a lack of a marriage license.
Issue:

The main question is whether the marriage between Jose and Felisa is void from the beginning
(void ab initio).
Ruling:

● Yes, the marriage is void ab initio because it lacked the requirements for a valid
marriage.
● The affidavit they executed claiming five years of living together was false; they only
lived together for five months before getting married.
● The law states that the five-year cohabitation period should be counted backward from
the marriage date and should include continuous and exclusive cohabitation.
● The solemnization of a marriage without a prior license is a clear violation of the law and
can be used for fraudulent purposes.
● The Court of Appeals reversed its initial decision and declared the marriage between
Jose and Felisa as void from the beginning.

ALCANTARA VS ALCANTARA

Facts:

● Restituto Alcantara filed for the annulment of his marriage with Rosita Alcantara.
● Restituto alleged that they got married without a marriage license and that they arranged
their wedding through a "fixer" who facilitated their marriage.
● They had a second marriage ceremony without a marriage license as well.
● They lived separately since 1988.
● Rosita countered that their marriage was valid, citing a certification from the Office of the
Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite, which stated that a marriage license was issued to
them.
● The trial court and the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Restituto's petition.
Issue:
The main question is whether the marriage between Restituto and Rosita was void from the
beginning (void ab initio).
Ruling:

● No, the marriage was not void from the beginning.

● A valid marriage license is required for a marriage to be valid, and its absence makes
the marriage void ab initio.
● In this case, the marriage contract showed a marriage license number, and a certification
from the local civil registrar confirmed the issuance of a license to Restituto and Rosita.
● Even if the marriage license was issued in a city or municipality where neither party
resided, it is considered an irregularity that doesn't affect the marriage's validity.
● The discrepancy in the marriage license number was considered a typographical error
and didn't change the fact that a license was issued.
● Restituto knowingly participated in the marriage ceremonies and cannot now claim the
marriage was void due to the absence of a license.
● He cannot use this claim to dissolve the marriage when it no longer suits him.
● The marriage is considered valid.

NEGRE VS RIVERA

Facts:
●
● Director Jolly R. Bugarin of the National Bureau of Investigation recommended the
administrative charge against Judge Felix A. Rivera for conducting an illegal marriage
ceremony without a marriage license.
● The marriage was supposed to have taken place between Corazon Negre and Amado
Orpilla, but Orpilla was already married.
● Miss Negre reported the case to the NBI.
● Orpilla misrepresented to Judge Rivera that he was single, and they signed the marriage
contract postdated to September 15, 1972, when the marriage license was expected.
● An assistant provincial fiscal charged Judge Rivera with performing an illegal marriage
ceremony.
● At the reinvestigation, Judge Rivera claimed he signed the marriage contract without
performing a ceremony and wanted the parties to obtain a marriage license.
● The fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the case, and the Court of First Instance dismissed it.
● Judge Rivera was later directed to explain his actions.
Issue:

The main issue is whether Judge Rivera should face disciplinary action for signing a marriage
contract without a marriage license.
Ruling:

● Judge Rivera's explanation and the dismissal of the criminal case did not fully absolve
him of irregular conduct.
 ● He acted imprudently by signing the marriage contract, assuming a marriage license
would be issued in due course.
● Lack of malice mitigates his negligence.
● The Court reprimands him, admonishing him to exercise more care and circumspection
in his duties and warning of more severe consequences for future irregularities.

MORIGO VS. PEOPLE

Facts:

● Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol and later became
sweethearts, even when Lucia went to work in Canada.
● They got married in Bohol on August 30, 1990, but Lucia filed for divorce in Canada,
which was granted on January 17, 1992.
● On October 4, 1992, Lucio married Maria Jececha Lumbago in Bohol.
● On September 21, 1993, Lucio filed a complaint to declare the nullity of his first
marriage, claiming there was no actual marriage ceremony.
Issue:

The main issue is whether Lucio Morigo needed to file for the nullity of his first marriage before
contracting his second marriage to avoid being charged with bigamy.
Ruling:

● Lucio Morigo's first marriage with Lucia Barrete was void from the beginning because no
actual marriage ceremony took place; they only signed a marriage contract.
● Therefore, he did not need to file for the nullity of his first marriage before contracting his
second marriage to Maria Jececha Lumbago.
● He did not commit bigamy, and he is acquitted from the case filed against him.

CORPUZ VS. SANTO TOMAS

Facts:

● Gerbert Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship, married
Daisylyn Sto. Tomas in the Philippines.
● After marital problems, Gerbert obtained a divorce in Canada, and Daisylyn also filed for
divorce.
● Gerbert later found another Filipina to marry and attempted to register his foreign divorce
decree with the Pasig City Civil Registry Office.
Issues:
 ● Can an alien spouse like Gerbert petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce
decree in the Philippines under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code?
● Does Gerbert lack legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign
divorce decree?
● Was the registration of the foreign divorce decree on Gerbert and Daisylyn's marriage
certificate proper?
Ruling:

● No, the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code does not extend to aliens the
right to petition a Philippine court for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree. This
provision is intended for the benefit of the Filipino spouse to clarify their marital status
and enable them to remarry under Philippine law.
● No, Gerbert does not lack legal interest to petition for the recognition of his foreign
divorce decree. Even though the provision does not apply to aliens, the foreign divorce
decree itself, along with evidence of its authenticity and conformity with Canadian law,
serves as presumptive evidence in Gerbert's favor.
● No, the registration of the foreign divorce decree on Gerbert and Daisylyn's marriage
certificate was not proper because there was no judicial recognition of the divorce
decree. The registration without the requisite judicial recognition is void and has no legal
effect.
● This case clarified that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is limited
to Filipino spouses, and the judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree is essential
for it to have legal validity in the Philippines.

FACTS:

● Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones, and they had children.
● Teodulfa was shot and killed by Pepito.
● One year and 8 months later, Pepito married respondent Norma Badayog without a
marriage license.
● Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit stating they had lived together as husband and
wife for at least five years, exempting them from securing a marriage license.
● Pepito later died in a car accident.
ISSUE:

Can the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
after his death?
HELD:

● Yes, the heirs of a deceased person may file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage after his death.
● It is crucial to understand the difference between void and voidable marriages:
● Void marriages can be questioned even after the death of either party.
● The action for nullity of void marriages is imprescriptible, meaning it has no time limit,
unlike voidable marriages.
● While voidable marriages are valid until declared otherwise by a court, void marriages
are considered never to have taken place, and they can be attacked even after death.
● In voidable marriages, only the parties involved can file for nullity during their lifetime, but
for void marriages, any proper interested party may question them.
● For purposes such as heirship, legitimacy, estate settlement, or property regime
dissolution, the court may determine the validity of a marriage even in a case not
primarily aimed at nullifying it.
● A final judgment declaring a previous marriage void is necessary when needed,
regardless of the purpose, not just for remarriage.
● The clause "on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void" in
the Family Code means that such a judgment need not be obtained only for the purpose
of remarriage.