Abbass vs. Abbas (G.R. No.

183896, January 30, 2013)

Facts: Syed Abbas, the petitioner herein, filed a petition for the declaration of nullity
of his marriage with Gloria Goo-Abbas, alleging the absence of a marriage license as
provided for in Article 4 of the Family Code. Petitioner presented to the court an
employee of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona Cavite. He testified that what
the respondent presented as a marriage license turns out to be one which was
issued to Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan. Respondent presented witnesses,
testifying that there was, in fact, a valid marriage license between petitioner and
respondent. Respondent testified that Syed is her husband, and presented the
marriage contract bearing their signature as proof. Respondent filed a case of
bigamy against Syed, who had married a certain Maria Corazon Buenaventura
during the existence of the previous marriage.
The trial court held that no valid marriage license was issued by the Municipal
Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite in favour of Gloria and Syed. Hence, the trial
court declared their marriage void ab initio for lacking a valid marriage license.
The appellate court reversed the decision of the lower court, giving credence
to the respondents argument, holding that the certification of the Municipal Civil
Registrar failed to categorically state that a diligent search for the marriage license
of Gloria and Syed was conducted. It held that there was sufficient testimonial and
documentary evidence that Gloria and Syed had been validly married and that there
was compliance with all the requisites laid down by law.
Issue: whether or not a valid marriage license had been issued for the couple
Held: None. The trial court was correct. 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 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. Thus, a copy
of the marriage license could have simply been secured from that office and
submitted to the court. However, Gloria inexplicably failed to do so, further
weakening her claim that there was a valid marriage license issued for her and
Syed.
All the evidence cited by the CA to show that a wedding ceremony was
conducted and a marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure the
absence of a valid marriage license. 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, except as stated in Article 35(2)." Article 35(3) of the Family
Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is void from the
beginning, except those exempt from the license requirement under Articles 27 to
34, Chapter 2, Title I of the same Code. Again, this marriage cannot be
characterized as among the exemptions, and thus, having been solemnized without
a marriage license, is void ab initio.

Republic vs. Encelan (G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013)

Facts: Cesar and Lolita were married in 1979, bearing two children. Cesar went to
Saudi Arabia to work to support his family. He found out that Lolita was having an
affair with Alvin Perez. Cesar alleged that Lolita left their conjugal home with her
children and lived with Alvin. Since then, they have been living separately. Cesar
continued to provide financial support for his family even after he learned Lolitas
affair with Alvin. In 1995, Cesar filed with the RTC a petition against Lolita for the
declaration of the nullity of his marriage based on Lolitas psychological incapacity.
Lolita denied having an affair, stating that she left the conjugal home
because of irreconcilable differences with her mother-in-law. Cesar presented a
psychological evaluation report on Lolita, finding that Lolita was unable to provide
the expectations expected of her for a good and lasting marital relationship; her
transferring from one job to other depicts some interpersonal problems with coworkers as well as her impatience in attaining her ambitions; and her refusal to go
with her husband abroad signifies her reluctance to work out a good marital and
family relationship.
The trial court ruled in favour of Cesar, finding sufficient basis to declare
Lolita psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations.
The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. The OSG argues that the
psychological evaluation report did not disclose that Lolita had been suffering from
a psychological illness nor did it establish its juridical antecedence, gravity and
incurability; infidelity and abandonment do not constitute psychological incapacity,
but are merely grounds for legal separation.
Issue: Whether there exists sufficient basis to nullify Cesars marriage to Lolita on
the ground of psychological incapacity.
Held: None.
No sufficient basis exists to annul Cesars marriage to Lolita on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity contemplates "downright incapacity or inability to
take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations"; not merely the
refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. The
plaintiff bears the burden of proving the juridical antecedence (i.e., the existence at
the time of the celebration of marriage), gravity and incurability of the condition of
the errant spouse. Cesar failed to prove Lolitas psychological incapacity.
Sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling do not necessarily
constitute psychological incapacity; these are simply grounds for legal separation.

To constitute psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and

abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely
prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations. Also,
a wifes psychological fitness as a spouse cannot simply be equated with her
professional/work relationship. Their relatedness and relevance to one another
should be fully established for them to be compared or to serve as measures of
comparison with one another. Lastly, Lolitas refusal to go with Cesar abroad, which
the respondents argued as a reluctance to work out a good marital relationship is in
fact a rash conclusion that the court cannot support.

Beckett vs. Sarmiento (A.M. No. RTJ-2326 January 30, 2013)

Facts: This case involves a complaint filed by Beckett charging Judge Sarmiento
with gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality and dereliction and neglect of
duty allegedly committed in a case entitled Beckett vs Eltesa Densing Beckett, while
pending before that court.
Geoffrey Beckett , an Australian was previously married with Eltesa Densing.
Their marriage ended up with them suing each other. The couples legal conflict
ended based on a compromise agreement in which both parties will cause all civil
and criminal cases each may have filed be dismissed. They categorically agreed too
that Beckett shall have full and permanent custody over Geoffrey Jr., then five years
old, subject to the visitorial rights of Eltesa.
Thereafter, Beckett left for Australia taking his son with him. Beckett and
Eltesa agreed they would come and see Eltesa in Cebu every Christmas. In 2007,
Beckett obtained a divorce decree in Australia, but yearly Christmas visits
continued. In the 2010 visit, Beckett consented to have Geoffrey, Jr. stay with Eltesa
even after the holidays, provided she return the child on January 9, 2011. January 9
came and went but Geoffrey, Jr. remained with Eltesa, prompting Beckett to file a
petition against Eltesa for violation of RA 7610. this petition was again raffled to the
sala of Judge Sarmiento. And because Geoffrey remained in the meantime in the
custody of Eltesa, Beckett later applied for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
During the hearing, the child exhibited behaviour towards his father that made him
look like a stranger. These include crying and shouting, and not letting go of his
mother. The respondent ordered the return of the child to Beckett, but said order
never materialized. Finally, during the preliminary conference, the respondent
issued an order giving Eltesa provisional custody over the child. After filing the
proper motions and being denied, Beckett filed this case against the respondent.
Issue; Whether or not the respondent Judge is guilty of gross negligence in giving
Eltesa legal custody of the child.
Held. No. Respondent judge cannot be held guilty of the charges hurled by the
complainant against him for the reason that absent a finding of strong reasons to
rule otherwise, the preference of a child over 7 years of age as to whom he desired
to live with shall be respected.

The matter of custody is not permanent and unalterable. If the parent who
was given custody suffers a future character change and becomes unfit, the matter
of custody can always be re-examined and adjusted. To be sure, the welfare, the
best interests, the benefit, and the good of the child must be determined as of the
time that either parent is chosen to be the custodian.
Geoffrey, Jr., at the time when he persistently refused to be turned over to his
father, was already over 7 years of age. As such, he was very much capable of
deciding, based on his past experiences, with whom he wanted to stay. Being in the
custody of his mother is something he feel secure and protected and this is
manifested in the childs craving for his mothers presence all the time and the
desire to be always with her that even she sleeps he wants his mother to embrace
and hug him and cries when he wakes up and he cannot see his mother.
For clearly, absent any evidence to the contrary, Geoffrey, Jr. chose to live
with his mother for a reason, which respondent judge, consistent with the promotion
of the best interest of the child, provisionally granted through the issuance of the
disputed March 15, 2011 Order.