October 3, 2019

A continuation of the Midterm Examination in

Legal Research and Thesis Writing

Case Digest and Synthesis of the

following Cases:

1. Jaime O. Sevilla v. Carmelita N. Cardenas, GR No. 167684, July 31, 2006

2. Restituto M. Alcantara v. Rosita A. Alcantara, GR No. 167746, August 28, 2007

3. Reinel Anthony B. De Castro v. Annabelle Assidao-De Castro, GR No. 160172,

February 13, 2008

4. Syed Azhar Abbas v. Gloria Goo Abbas, GR No. 183896, January 30, 2013

5. Sally Go-Bangayan v. Benjamin Bangayan, GR No. 201061, Jr., July 3, 2013

Jaime O. Sevilla v. Carmelita N. Cardenas
GR No. 167684, July 31, 2006
Facts:

Jaime O. Sevilla, herein petitioner, filed a petition for the

declaration of nullity of his marriage to Carmelita N. Cardenas,
herein respondent, for their marriage was vitiated by
machination, duress, and intimidation employed by the
respondents Carmelita and her father. He was forced to sign a
marriage contract with Carmelita Cardenas before a minister of
the Gospel, Rev. Cirilo D Gonzales. Moreover, he alleged that
there was no marriage license presented before the solemnizing
officer as certified by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San
Juan, Manila. Actually, it was certified 3 times on the following
dates: March 11, September 20, 1994 and July 25, 2000 that
marriage license no. 2770792 was nowhere to be found.

On the other hand, the respondent, Carmelita N. Cardenas refuted

these allegations of Jaime and claims that they were first civilly
married on May 19, 1969 and thereafter married at a church on
May 31, 1969 at Most Holy Redeemer Parish in Quezon City. Both
were alleged to be recorded in Local Civil Registrar and NSO. He
is estopped from invoking the lack of marriage license after
having been married to her for 25 years.

The Regional Trial Court of Makati City declared the nullity of

marriage of the parties based on the petitioner’s allegations that
no marriage license was presented before a solemnizing officer.
And without the said marriage license, being one of the formal
requisites of marriage, the marriage is void from the beginning.
This was based on the 3 certifications issued by the Local Civil
Registrar Manila that marriage license number 220792
was fictitious.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed and
set aside the decision of the trail court in favor of the marriage,
because the Local Civil Registrar failed to locate the said license
with due effort as testified by certain Perlita Mercader because the
former Local Civil registrar had already retired. The petitioner
then filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the
Court of Appeals. Thus, this case was elevated to the Supreme
Court.

Issue:

Whether or not the certification made by the Local Civil Registrar

of San Juan that Marriage License No. 2770792, as appearing in
the marriage contract of the parties, sufficient to declare the
marriage void from the beginning

Held:

The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted

by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.
The absence of logbook is not conclusive proof of non-issuance of
Marriage License No. 2770792. In the absence of showing of
diligent efforts to search for the said logbook, we cannot easily
accept that absence of the same also means non-existence or
falsity of entries therein.

The parties have comported themselves as husband and wife and

lived together for several years producing two offsprings, now
adult themselves. Thus, the instant petition was denied.
Restituto M. Alcantara v. Rosita A. Alcantara
GR No. 167746, August 28, 2007
Facts:

A petition for annulment of marriage was filed by petitioner

against respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging that he and
respondent celebrated their marriage twice without securing the
required marriage license. The alleged marriage license, procured
in Carmona, Cavite, appearing on the marriage contract, is a
sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona, and they never
went to Carmona to apply for a license with the local civil registrar
of the said place. On 14 October 1985, respondent gave birth to
their child Rose Ann Alcantara. In 1988, they parted ways and
lived separate lives. Petitioner prayed that after due hearing,
judgment be issued declaring their marriage void and ordering
the Civil Registrar to cancel the corresponding marriage contract
and its entry on file.

Answering petitioner’s petition for annulment of marriage,

respondent asserts the validity of their marriage and maintains
that there was a marriage license issued as evidenced by a
certification from the Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona,
Cavite. She had actually given birth to two children, one as stated
by the petitioner and the other was Rachel Ann Alcantara on
October 27, 1992. Moreover, petitioner filed the said case in order
to evade prosecution for concubinage for he had a mistress with
whom he had three children. The case for concubinage was
actually filed and that petitioner prays that the annulment case
be dismissed for lack of merit.

The Regional Trial Court of Makati City dismissed the petition for
lack of merit. The Court of Appeals dismissed also the petitioner’s
appeal. Hence, the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue:

Whether or not The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a

reversible error when it ruled that the Petition for Annulment has
no legal and factual basis despite the evidence on record that
there was no marriage license at the precise moment of the
solemnization of the marriage

Held:

The certification of Municipal Civil Registrar Macrino L. Diaz of

Carmona, Cavite 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. The
presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted
by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.
However, the presumption prevails until it is overcome by no less
than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless
the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every
reasonable intendment will be made in support of the
presumption and, in case of doubt as to an officer’s act being
lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its
lawfulness. Significantly, apart from these, petitioner, by counsel,
admitted that a marriage license was, indeed, issued in Carmona,
Cavite.

Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. The presumption is always

in favor of the validity of the marriage. Every intendment of the
law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage bonds. The
Courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be
lightly repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great
weight.
 Reinel Anthony B. De Castro v. Annabelle Assidao-De Castro
GR No. 160172, February 13, 2008

FACTS:

Petitioner and respondent met and became sweethearts in 1991.

They planned to get married, thus they applied for a marriage
license with the Office of the Civil Registrar of Pasig City in
September 1994.

They had their first sexual relation sometime in October 1994, and
had regularly engaged in sex thereafter. When the couple went
back to the Office of the Civil Registrar, the marriage license had
already expired. Thus, in order to push through with the plan, in
lieu of a marriage license, they executed an affidavit dated 13
March 1995 stating that they had been living together as husband
and wife for at least five years.

The couple got married on the same date, with Judge Jose C.
Bernabe, presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig
City, administering the civil rites. Nevertheless, after the
ceremony, petitioner and respondent went back to their respective
homes and did not live together as husband and wife.

In 1998, Annabelle filed a petition for support against Reinel,

claiming that he had not given support to her and their child.

In his answer, Reinel denied that he is married to Annabelle,

claiming that their marriage is void ab initio since the marriage
was facilitated by a fake affidavit. He alleged that they never
cohabited with each other five years before their marriage; hence
they were not exempted from the requirement of a marriage
license.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage between Reinel and Annabelle is
valid.

HELD:

NO, the marriage between Reinel and Annabelle is void ab initio.

Under the Family Code, the absence of any of the essential or

formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, whereas
a defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage
voidable.

In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence presented that

petitioner and respondent did not have a marriage license when
they contracted their marriage. Instead, they presented an
affidavit stating that they had been living together for more than
five years.

However, respondent herself in effect admitted the falsity of the

affidavit when she was asked during cross-examination. The
falsity of the affidavit cannot be considered as a mere irregularity
in the formal requisites of marriage. The law dispenses with the
marriage license requirement for a man and a woman who have
lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and
wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least five years
before the marriage.

The aim of this provision is to avoid exposing the parties to

humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the
scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due
to the publication of every applicant’s name for a marriage license.
 In the instant case, there was no "scandalous cohabitation" to
protect; in fact, there was no cohabitation at all. The false affidavit
which petitioner and respondent executed so they could push
through with the marriage has no value whatsoever; it is a mere
scrap of paper. They were not exempt from the marriage license
requirement. Their failure to obtain and present a marriage
license renders their marriage void ab initio.
 Syed Azhar Abbas v. Gloria Goo Abbas
GR No. 183896, January 30, 2013
FACTS:

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 welcomehim to the
Philippines (Abbas is a Pakistani). He said he did not know that
the ceremony wasactually his marriage with Gloria Goo.

Later, Gloria filed a bigamy case against Abbas. Abbas allegedly

married a certain MariaCorazon Buenaventura.To avoid the
bigamy case, Abbas filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of
his marriage toGloria Goo.

To prove the validity of their marriage, Gloria presented a

marriage contract signed by Abbas aswell as the solemnizing
officer who celebrated their marriage. The marriage contract
containedthe alleged marriage license issued to Abbas.
Abbas presented a certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar
which states that themarriage 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 theground that there was
no diligence to search for the real source of the marriage license
issuedto 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 theissuance of a valid marriage license.

The Court of Appeals is wrong in reversing the RTC. The Local

Civil registrar’s certification enjoyed probative value as her duty
was to maintain records of data relative to the issuance of
amarriage license. There is a presumption of regularity of official
acts in favor of the local civilregistrar. 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 infact 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.
 Sally Go-Bangayan v. Benjamin Bangayan
GR No. 201061, Jr., July 3, 2013

FACTS:

In September 1979, Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. married Azucena

Alegre. In 1982, while Alegre was outside the Philippines,
Benjamin developed a romantic relationship with Sally Go. Sally’s
father was against this. In order to appease her father, Sally
convinced Benjamin to sign a purported marriage contract in
March 1982. Sally, knowing Benjamin’s marital status, assured
him that the marriage contract would not be registered.

In 1994, the relationship between Sally and Benjamin soured.

Sally filed criminal actions for bigamy and falsification of public
documents against Benjamin, using their simulated marriage
contract as evidence. Benjamin, 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 Sally was bigamous and that it lacked the formal
requisites to a valid marriage.To prove the existence of their
marriage, Sally presented a marriage license allegedly issued to
Benjamin

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage between Sally and Benjamin is

bigamous.

HELD:

No, the marriage is not bigamous.

The elements of bigamy are:

1. That the offender has been legally married.

2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his
or her spouse is absent, theabsent spouse could not yet be
presumed dead according to the Civil Code.

3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage.

4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential

requisites for validity.

In this case, the fourth element is not present. The marriage

license presented by Sally was not authentic as in fact, no
marriage license was ever issued to both parties in view of the
alleged marriage. The marriage between them was merely in jest
and never complied with the essential requisites of marriage.
Hence, there is no bigamous marriage to speak of.
 Synthesis of All Relevant Cases

The Supreme Court has decided six cases on lack or

defect of marriage license under the formal requisites of marriage
under Article 3 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

In the case of Sevilla v. Cardenas, GR No. 167684, July

31, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that the presumption of
regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence
of irregularity or failure to perform a duty and the absence of the
logbook is not conclusive proof of non-issuance of Marriage
License No. 2770792. The parties have comported themselves as
husband and wife and lived together for several years producing
two offsprings, now adults themselves. It took petitioner several
years before he filed the petition for declaration of nullity.
Admittedly, he married another individual sometime in 1991.
Supreme Court is not ready to reward petitioner by declaring the
nullity of his marriage and give him his freedom and in the
process allow him to profit from his own deceit and perfidy.

In Alcantara v. Alcantara , G.R. No. 167746,

August 28, 2007, the Supreme Court held that it can be deduced
that 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
Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Almario, further validating the fact
that a license was in fact issued to the parties herein.

Furthermore, Supreme Court said that there is no

sufficient basis to annul petitioner and respondent’s marriage.
Issuance of a marriage license in a city or municipality, not the
residence of either of the contracting parties, and issuance of a
marriage license despite the absence of publication or prior to the
completion of the 10-day period for publication are considered
mere irregularities that do not affect the validity of the
marriage.30 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.

In the case of De Castro v. De Castro, G.R. No. 160172,

February 13, 2008, Supreme Court held that Under the Family
Code, the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall
render the marriage void ab initio, whereas a defect in any of the
essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable. In the
instant case, it is clear from the evidence presented that petitioner
and respondent did not have a marriage license when they
contracted their marriage. Instead, they presented an affidavit
stating that they had been living together for more than five years.
The falsity of the affidavit cannot be considered as a mere
irregularity in the formal requisites of marriage. The law
dispenses with the marriage license requirement for a man and a
woman who have lived together and exclusively with each other as
husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at
least five years before the marriage. They were not exempt from
the marriage license requirement. Their failure to obtain and
present a marriage license renders their marriage void ab initio.

In the case of Abbas v Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January

30, 2013, the Supreme Court held that Respondent Gloria failed
to present the actual marriage license, or a copy thereof, and
relied on the marriage contract as well as the testimonies of her
witnesses to prove the existence of said license. To prove that no
such license was issued, Syed, the petitioner turned to the office of
the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite which had
allegedly issued said license. It was there that he requested
certification that no such license was issued. As to the motive of
Syed in seeking to annul his marriage to Gloria, it may well be that
his motives are less than pure, that he seeks to evade a bigamy
suit. Be that as it may, the same does not make up for the failure
of the respondent to prove that they had a valid marriage license,
given the weight of evidence presented by petitioner. The lack of a
valid marriage license cannot be attributed to him, as it was Gloria
who took steps to procure the same. The law must be applied. As
the marriage license, a formal requisite is clearly absent, the
marriage of Gloria and Syed is void ab initio.

In the case of Go- Bangayan v Bangayan, G.R. No.

201061, July 3, 2013, the Supreme Court held that there is no
inconsistency in finding the marriage between Benjamin and Sally
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 case, the
marriage between Benjamin and Sally was solemnized without a
license. It was duly established that no marriage license was
issued to them and that Marriage License No. N-07568 did not
match the marriage license numbers issued by the local civil
registrar of Pasig City for the month of February 1982. The case
clearly falls under Section 3 of Article 35 which made their
marriage void ab initio. Benjamin and Sally just signed a
purported marriage contract without a marriage license. The
supposed marriage was not recorded with the local civil registrar
and the National Statistics Office. In short, the marriage between
Benjamin and Sally did not exist. They lived together and
represented themselves as husband and wife without the benefit
of marriage.

From the above cases, Supreme Court has laid down

different circumstances where a marriage can be declared valid or
null and void, with the absence or defect of one of the formal
requisite which is the marriage license.
An absence of the marriage license (Abbas Case) or a
false marriage license (Bangayan Case) will render the marriage
void ab initio, while a defect of the formal requisite such as
absence of the logbook of the marriage license (Sevilla case), or a
marriage license number reflecting in the marriage contract
wasn’t under the name of the parties (Alcantara case) does not
affect the validity of a marriage. In the case where the parties
falsified their affidavits of having been cohabiting for five years
(De Castro case) cannot be considered as a mere irregularity in
the formal requisites of marriage, thus rendering the marriage
void ab initio.
Under the Family Code, The absence of any of the
essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab
initio, and a defect in any of the essential requisites shall render
the marriage voidable and an irregularity in the formal requisites
do not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties
responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and
administratively liable.