REPUBLIC VS CA

ISSUE

SY VS CA
ISSUE

SEVILLA VS CARDENAS
ISSUE

SILVERIO VS REPUBLIC
ISSUE

COSCA VS PALAYPAYON
ISSUE
complainant
- Respondent
judge
solemnized
marriages
even
without the requisite
marriage licenses
- Couples were able to
get
married
by
paying the marriage
fees to Baroy
- Marriage
contracts
did not reflect any
marriage
license
number
- Respondent
judge
did not sign their
marriage
contracts
and did not indicate
the
date
of
solemnitization
All file copies were kept by
respondent

respondent
Baroy: employees of the
court
were
already
hostile to her
- It was
Sambo
who
failed
to
furnish the parties
copies
of
the
marriage contract
and to register
these
with
the
local civil registrar
- Sambo kept the
marriage contracts
in preparation for
administrative
case

She instructed sambo

ARANES VS OCCIANO
ISSUE

MORIGO VS PEOPLE
ISSUE: WON ACCUSED CAN BE HELD GUILTY FOR
BIGAMY

Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates and

lost communication after school year
Lucio received a card from Lucia and from there
started their echange of letters and soon became
sweethearts
Lucia left for Canada and came back to the Philippines
and proposed to petition Lucio to join her in Canada
Both agreed to get married (Iglesia de Filipina
National)
Lucia filed for divorce (Ontario Court) against
appellant which was granted by the court
Lucio married Maria Jececha Lumbago
Lucio filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity
of marriage on the ground that no actual marriage
ceremony actually took place
In 1993, Lucio was charged with Bigamy
Lucio moved for suspension of the arraignment on the
civil case for judicial nullification of his marriage posed
a prejudicial question in bigamy case
RTC found Lucio guity of bigamy
o The trial court discounted petitioners claim that
his first marriage to Lucia was null and void ab
initio
o Following Domingo v. Court of Appeals, the trial
court ruled that want of a valid marriage
ceremony is not a defense in a charge of
bigamy. The parties to a marriage should not be

allowed to assume that their marriage is void

even if such be the fact but must first secure a
judicial declaration of the nullity of their
marriage before they can be allowed to marry
again.
o The trial court cited Ramirez v. Gmur,9 which
held that the court of a country in which neither
of the spouses is domiciled and in which one or
both spouses may resort merely for the purpose
of obtaining a divorce, has no jurisdiction to
determine the matrimonial status of the parties.
Petitioner filed for an appeal
CA declared the marriage between Lucio and Lucia
void ab initio since no marriage ceremony actually
took place
o The
appellate
court
stressed
that
the
subsequent declaration of nullity of Lucios
marriage to Lucia could not acquit Lucio.
o What is sought to be punished by Article 34912
of the Revised Penal Code is the act of
contracting a second marriage before the first
marriage had been dissolved. Hence, the CA
held, the fact that the first marriage was void
from the beginning is not a valid defense in a
bigamy case.
o Divorce decree obtained by Lucia from the
Canadian court could not be accorded validity in
the Philippines, pursuant to Article 15 of the
Civil Code and given the fact that it is contrary
to public policy in this jurisdiction. Under Article
17 of the Civil Code, a declaration of public
policy cannot be rendered ineffectual by a
judgment promulgated in a foreign jurisdiction.

In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, we laid down the elements

of bigamy thus:

1. the offender has been legally married;

2. the first marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent,
the absent spouse has not been judicially
declared presumptively dead;
3. he contracts a subsequent marriage; and
4. the subsequent marriage would have been valid
had it not been for the existence of the first

The trial court found that there was no actual marriage

ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a
solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a
mere signing of the marriage contract by the two,
without the presence of a solemnizing officer. The trial
court thus held that the marriage is void ab initio, in
accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code
There was no marriage to begin with; and that such
declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first
marriage
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that
the accused must have been legally married. But in
this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never
married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is no first
marriage to speak of. Under the principle of
retroactivity of a marriage being declared void ab
initio, the two were never married "from the
beginning." The contract of marriage is null; it bears
no legal effect.

In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at

all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing
officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a
marriage contract on their own. The mere private act
of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to
a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial
declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more,
cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid
marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for
bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of
nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.
The petitioner Lucio Morigo y Cacho is ACQUITTED
from the charge of BIGAMY on the ground that his
guilt has not been proven with moral certainty.

ALCANTARA VS ALCANTARA
ISSUE
WON THE MARRIAGE OF THE RESTITUTO
AND ROSITA WAS WITH A VALID MARRIAGE
Rosita Alcantara filed for a petition for annulment of
marriage alleging that they did not acquire a
marriage license when they went to the city hall of
Manila looking for a person who could arranged a
marriage for them.
With the help of a fixer, they got married before Rev.
Aquilino Navarro
They went through another marriage the following
year. The marriage was likewise celebrated without
the parties securing a marriage license
The alleged marriage license was procured in Cavite,
is a sham as neither of the party was a resident of
Carmona and they never went there to apply for a
license
In 1988, they parted ways and lived separate lives.
Petitioner prayed judgment be issued declaring their
marriage void and ordering the Civil Registrar to
cancel the corresponding marriage contract and its
entry on file.

Respondent has filed a case for concubinage against

petitioner. Respondent prays that the petition for
annulment of marriage be denied for lack of merit.
RESPONDENT

PETITIONER

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

Contrary
to
petitioners
representation,
respondent
gave birth to their first child
named Rose Ann Alcantara
on 14 October 1985 and to
another
daughter
named
Rachel Ann Alcantara on 27
October 1992
Petitioner has a mistress with
whom he has three children.

His
marriage
with
the
respondent was celebrated,
there
was
no
marriage
license because he and
respondent just went to the
Manila City Hall and dealt
with a "fixer" who arranged
everything for them
The wedding took place at
the stairs in Manila City Hall
and not in CDCC BR Chapel
where Rev. Aquilino Navarro
who solemnized the marriage
belongs

He and respondent did not go

to Carmona, Cavite, to apply
for a marriage license

Petitioner only filed the

annulment of their marriage
to evade prosecution for
concubinage.
Assuming a marriage license from Carmona, Cavite, was
issued to them, neither he nor the respondent was a
resident of the place. 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.
Restituto Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario" but their
marriage contract bears the number 7054033 for their
marriage license number.
The marriage involved herein having been solemnized on
8 December 1982, or prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code, the applicable law to determine its validity is the

Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its
celebration.
A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under
Article 53 of the Civil Code, the absence of which renders
the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in
relation to Article 58 of the same Code.

This is to certify that as per the registry Records of Marriage filed in this office, Marriage
License No. 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. Restituto Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario on
December 8, 1982.
This Certification is being issued upon the request of Mrs. Rosita A. Alcantara for whatever
legal purpose or intents it may serve.

Article 53 of the Civil Code which was the law applicable

at the time of the marriage of the parties states:
Art. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these
requisites are complied with:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties;
(2) Their consent, freely given;
(3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and
(4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of
exceptional character.

Clearly, from these cases, 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.
The certification of Municipal Civil Registrar Macrino L. Diaz of Carmona, Cavite, reads:

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.
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 officers 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.

Petitioner, in a faint attempt to demolish the

probative value of the marriage license, claims that
neither he nor respondent is a resident of
Carmona, Cavite.

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. 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.

Petitioner and respondent went through a marriage

ceremony twice in a span of less than one year
utilizing the same marriage license. There is no
claim that he went through the second wedding
ceremony in church under duress or with a gun to
his head. Everything was executed without nary a
whimper on the part of the petitioner.

The church ceremony was confirmatory of their civil

marriage, thereby cleansing whatever irregularity
or defect attended the civil wedding.

Moreover, the solemnizing officer is not duty-bound

to investigate whether or not a marriage license
has been duly and regularly issued by the local civil
registrar. All the solemnizing officer needs to know
is that the license has been issued by the
competent official, and it may be presumed from
the issuance of the license that said official has
fulfilled the duty to ascertain whether the
contracting parties had fulfilled the requirements of
law.

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.

NOLLORA, JR VS PEOPLE

ISSUE
WON THE MUSLIM LAW OR THE FAMILY CODE SHALL
APPLY TO THE MARRIAGE OF NOLLORA
WON NOLLORA IS GUILTY BEYOND
DOUBT OF THE CRIME BIGAMY

REASONABLE

(Asst City Proescutor) Raymond Jonathan Lledo filed an

Information against Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. ("Nollora")
and Rowena P. Geraldino ("Geraldino") for the crime of
Bigamy.
ATILANO O. NOLLORA, JR., being then legally married to
one JESUSA PINAT NOLLORA, and as said marriage has
not been legally dissolved and still subsisting, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a
subsequent or second marriage with her [sic] coaccused ROWENA P. GERALDINO
Nollora refused to enter his plea thus a plea of not guilty
was entered by the Court for him
DEFENSE OF PROSECUTION:
o

Jesusa and Atilano met in Saudi Arabia and got

married at the [IE]MELIF Church in Bulacan

Jesusa learned that Atilano contracted a second

marriage with Rowena (when she secured a
certification as to the civil status of Atilano from the
NSO)

Jesusa confronted Rowena who admitted she knew

of Atilanos first marriage

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE:

o Nollora, Jr. admitted having contracted two (2)
marriages
o He claimed that he was a Muslim convert way back
on January 10, 1992, even before he contracted
the first marriage with the private complainant
As a Muslim convert, he is allegedly entitled to
marry four (4) wives as allowed under the
Muslim or Islam belief.
o To prove, he presented a Certificate of Conversion
and a Pledge of Conversion issued by Hadji Abdul
Kajar Madueno (founder and president of Balik
Islam Tableegh Foundation of the Philippines)
o He claimed that the private complaint knew that he
was a Muslim convert prior to their marriage
The reason why said private complainant
filed the instant case was due to hatred
having learned of his second marriage
o He explained that in his Marriage Contract with
Jesusa Pinat, it is indicated that he was a Catholic
Pentecostal but that he was not aware why it was
placed as such on said contract.
o In his Marriage Contract with Rowena P. Geraldino,
the religion Catholic was also indicated because he
was keeping as a secret his being a Muslim since
the society does not approve of marrying a Muslim.
He also indicated that he was single despite his
first marriage to keep said first marriage a secret
o He declared that a Muslim convert could marry
more than one according to the Holy Koran.
However, before marrying his second, third and
fourth wives, it is required that the consent of the

first Muslim wife be secured. Thus, if the first wife

is not a Muslim, there is no necessity to secure her
consent
Trial Courts Ruling:
o Convicted Nollora and acquitted Geraldino
o Trial court stated that there are only two exceptions
to prosecution for bigamy: Article 41 of the Family
Code, or Executive Order No. 209, and Article 180 of
the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines,
or Presidential Decree No. 1083.
o The trial court also cited Article 27 of the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, which
provides the qualifications for allowing Muslim men
to have more than one wife:
"[N]o Muslim male can have more than one wife
unless he can deal with them in equal companionship
and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic Law and
only in exceptional cases."
o

The principle in Islam is that monogamy is the general

rule and polygamy is allowed only to meet urgent needs.
Only with the permission of the court can a Muslim be
permitted to have a second wife subject to certain
requirements. This is because having plurality of wives is
merely tolerated, not encouraged
Any Muslim husband desiring to contract subsequent
marriages, before so doing, shall notify the Sharia Circuit
Court of the place where his family resides. The clerk of
court shall serve a copy thereof to the wife or wives.
Should any of them objects [sic]; an Agama Arbitration
Council shall be constituted. If said council fails to secure
the wifes consent to the proposed marriage, the Court
shall, subject to Article 27, decide whether on [sic] not to
sustain her objection (Art. 162, Muslim Personal Laws of
the Philippines).

Atilano did not comply with the provisions of the law. In

fact, he did not even declare that he was a Muslim convert
in both marriages, indicating his criminal intent. In his
converting to the Muslim faith, said accused entertained
the mistaken belief that he can just marry anybody again
after marrying the private complainant.
A Muslim is not given an unbridled right to just marry
anybody the second, third or fourth time. There are
requirements that the Sharia law imposes, that is, he
should have notified the Sharia Court where his family
resides so that copy of said notice should be furnished to
the first wife.
The argument that notice to the first wife is not
required since she is not a Muslim is of no moment.
This obligation to notify the said court rests upon
accused Atilano Nollora, Jr. It is not for him to
interpret the Sharia law. It is the Sharia Court that
has this authority.

In an apparent attempt to escape criminal liability, the accused

recelebrated their marriage in accordance with the Muslim rites.
However, this can no longer cure the criminal liability that has
already been violated
APPELLATE COURTS RULING:
o
o

The appellate court dismissed Nolloras appeal and

affirmed the trial courts decision
The appellate court rejected Nolloras defense that
his second marriage to Geraldino was in lawful
exercise of his Islamic religion and was allowed by
the Quran. The appellate court denied Nolloras
invocation of his religious beliefs and practices to the
prejudice of the non-Muslim women who married him
pursuant to Philippine civil laws. Nolloras two
marriages were not conducted in accordance with
the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, hence the Family
Code of the Philippines should apply. Nolloras claim

of religious freedom will not immobilize the State and

render it impotent in protecting the general welfare

o Nollora and Geraldinos marriage has all the essential

requisites for validity except for the lack of capacity
of Nollora due to his prior marriage.

COURTS RULING:
o Nolloras petition has no merit. We affirm the rulings
of the appellate court and of the trial court.

Elements of Bigamy

conducted in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal

Laws, or Presidential Decree No. 1083

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person
who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has
been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively
dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.

1. That the offender has been legally married.

o Nolloras religious affiliation is not an issue here.

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.

Neither is the claim that Nolloras marriages were

solemnized according to Muslim law. Thus,
regardless of his professed religion, Nollora cannot
claim exemption from liability for the crime of
bigamy

3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage.

4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites
for validity.

The circumstances in the present case satisfy all the elements

of bigamy.
o

Nollora is legally married to Pinat;

Nollora and Pinats marriage has not been legally

dissolved prior to the date of the second marriage;

Nollora admitted the existence

marriage to Geraldino; and

of

his

second

Indeed, Article 13(2) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws

states that "[i]n case of a marriage between a Muslim and a
non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim
law or this Code, the [Family Code of the Philippines, or
Executive Order No. 209, in lieu of the Civil Code of the
Philippines] shall apply.

The elements of the crime of bigamy are:

Nollora cannot deny that both marriage ceremonies were not

In his petition before this Court, Nollora casts doubt on the

validity of his marriage to Geraldino. Nollora may not impugn
his marriage to Geraldino in order to extricate himself from
criminal liability; otherwise, we would be opening the doors to
allowing the solemnization of multiple flawed marriage
ceremonies.

REPUBLIC VS ALBIOS
ISSUE
WON A MARRIAGE CONTRACTED FOR THE
SOLE
PURPOSE
OF
ACQUIRING
AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP IN CONSIDERATION OF $2,000 VOID
AB INITIO ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF CONSENT
Daniel Lee Fringer (Fringer), American and respondent
Liberty Albios (Albios) were married before Judge Ofelia
I. Calo
Albios filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of
nullity 4 of her marriage with Fringer
o She alleged that immediately after their
marriage, they separated and never lived as
husband and wife because they never really had
any intention of entering into a married state or
complying with any of their essential marital
obligations.
o She described their marriage as one made in
jest and, therefore, null and void ab initio
RULING OF RTC: RTC declared the marriage void ab
initio
RTC, thus, ruled that when marriage was entered
into for a purpose other than the establishment of a
conjugal and family life, such was a farce and should
not be recognized from its inception.
o Parties married each other for convenience only
o She contracted Fringer to enter into a marriage
to enable her to acquire American citizenship;
that in consideration thereof, she agreed to pay
him the sum of $2,000.00
o After the ceremony, the parties went their
separate ways
o Fringer returned to the United States and never
again communicated with her; and that, in turn,

she did not pay him the $2,000.00 because he

never processed her petition for citizenship
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion
for reconsideration
RTC denied the motion for want of merit
o Marriage was declared void because the parties
failed to freely give their consent to the
marriage as they had no intention to be legally
bound by it and used it only as a means to
acquire American citizenship in consideration of
$2,000.00.
RULING OF CA: CA affirmed RTC ruling
o Found that the essential requisite of consent
was lacking
o Parties clearly did not understand the nature
and consequence of getting married and that
their case was similar to a marriage in jest
o Parties never intended to enter into the
marriage contract and never intended to live as
husband and wife or build a family.
o It concluded that their purpose was primarily for
personal gain, that is, for Albios to obtain
foreign citizenship, and for Fringer, the
consideration of $2,000.00
ARGUMENTS OF OSG
Both parties freely gave their consent to the marriage, as
they knowingly and willingly entered into that marriage and
knew the benefits and consequences of being bound by it
Consent should be distinguished from motive, the latter
being inconsequential to the validity of marriage
Present case does not fall within the concept of a marriage
in jest.

THE COURT RESOLVES IN THE NEGATIVE

o Respondents marriage not void
Agreeing with the RTC, the CA ruled that the essential
requisite of consent was lacking. It held that the
parties clearly did not understand the nature and
consequence of getting married.
The CAs assailed decision was, therefore, grounded on
the parties supposed lack of consent. Under Article 2
of the Family Code, consent is an essential requisite of
marriage. Article 4 of the same Code provides that the
absence of any essential requisite shall render a
marriage void ab initio.
Under said Article 2, for consent to be valid, it must be
(1) freely given and (2) made in the presence of a
solemnizing officer. A "freely given" consent requires
that the contracting parties willingly and deliberately
enter into the marriage.
o Consent must be real in the sense that it is not
vitiated nor rendered defective by any of the
vices of consent under Articles45 and 46 of the
Family Code, such as fraud, force, intimidation,
and undue influence
o Consent must also be conscious or intelligent, in
that the parties must be capable of intelligently
understanding the nature of, and both the
beneficial or unfavorable consequences of their
act. Their understanding should not be affected
by insanity, intoxication, drugs, or hypnotism.
Consent was not lacking between Albios and Fringer

There was real consent because it was not

vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of
consent
o Their consent was also conscious and intelligent
as they understood the nature and the
beneficial and inconvenient consequences of
their marriage, as nothing impaired their ability
to do so
o That their consent was freely given is best
evidenced by their conscious purpose of
acquiring American citizenship through marriage
Such plainly demonstrates that they
willingly and deliberately contracted the
marriage
There was a clear intention to enter into a real and
valid marriage so as to fully comply with the
requirements of an application for citizenship
There was a full and complete understanding of the
legal tie that would be created between them, since it
was that precise legal tie which was necessary to
accomplish their goal.
Albios and Fringer had an undeniable intention to be
bound in order to create the very bond necessary to
allow the respondent to acquire American citizenship.
o
Only a genuine consent to be married would
allow
them
to
further
their
objective,
considering that only a valid marriage can
properly support an application for citizenship.
o There was, thus, an apparent intention to enter
into the actual marriage status and to create a
legal tie, albeit for a limited purpose. Genuine
consent was, therefore, clearly present.
RELATION TO ARTICLE 1:
o

The parties here intentionally consented to enter into a real

and valid marriage, for if it were otherwise, the purpose of
Albios to acquire American citizenship would be rendered
futile

The possibility that the parties in a marriage might

have no real intention to establish a life together is,
however, insufficient to nullify a marriage freely

entered into in accordance with law. The same Article

1 provides that the nature, consequences, and
incidents of marriage are governed by law and not
subject to stipulation. A marriage may, thus, only be
declared void or voidable under the grounds provided
by law. There is no law that declares a marriage void if
it is entered into for purposes other than what the
Constitution or law declares, such as the acquisition of
foreign citizenship. Therefore, so long as all the
essential and formal requisites prescribed by law are
present, and it is not void or voidable under the
grounds provided by law, it shall be declared valid.

The right to marital privacy allows married couples to

structure their marriages in almost any way they see
fit, to live together or live apart, to have children or no
children, to love one another or not, and so on.
Marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or
otherwise, such as convenience, companionship,
money, status, and title, provided that they comply
with all the legal requisites, are equally valid. Love,
though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract,
is not the only valid cause for marriage. Other
considerations, not precluded by law, may validly
support a marriage.
FRAUDULENT MARRIAGES

Only the circumstances listed under Article 46 of the

same Code may constitute fraud, namely,
(1) non-disclosure of a previous conv1ctwn involving
moral turpitude;
(2) Concealment by the wife of a pregnancy by
another man;

(3) Concealment of a sexually transmitted disease;

and
(4) Concealment of drug addiction, alcoholism, or
homosexuality. No other misrepresentation or deceit
shall constitute fraud as a ground for an action to
annul a marriage.
Entering into a marriage for the sole purpose of evading
immigration laws does not qualify under any of the listed
circumstances. Furthermore, under Article 47 (3), the ground
of fraud may only be brought by the injured or innocent
party. In the present case, there is no injured party because
Albios and Fringer both conspired to enter into the sham
marriage.

ABBAS VS ABBAS

ISSUE WON A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE HAD BEEN

ISSUED FOR COUPLE ABBAS
Syed Azhar Abbas (Pakistani) met and married Gloria
Goo-Abbas in Taiwan
He arrived in the Philippines in December of 1992
In January of 1993, at his mother-in-laws residence,
he was told to undergo a ceremony, one of his
requirements for his stay in the Philippines
Syed and Gloria signed a contract.
CONTENTIONS OF SYED:
o He claimed that he did not know that the
ceremony was a wedding until Gloria told him
o He did not go to Carmona, Cavite to apply for a
marriage license nor did he resided in the area
Syed went to Cavite to check on their marriage license
(because Gloria filed a bigamy case against him)
o Municipal Civil Registrar issued a certification
stating that the marriage license number in
their marriage contract was that of another
couples (Getalado-Manilangan)
SYED
Norberto
Bagsic
(employee of Municipal
Civil
Registrar
in
Carmona)
- Testified that their
office issues serial
numbers for MLs
and are arranged
chronologically

GLORIA
Rev. Dauz:
- Minister
of
the
Gospel
and
a
barangay captain
- He is authorized to
solemnize
marriages
within
the Philippines
- Testified that he
solemnized
the

Certification
presented by Syed
was signed by the
Registrar
of
Carmona
Their office had not
issued any other
license of the same
number
to
any
other person

marriage
of
the
couple at the bride
with Atty. Sanchez
and and May Ann
Ceriola as witnesses
- Testified that he
had
been
solemnizing
marriages and is
familiar with the
requirements
- He
said
the
marriage
license
was given to him by
Atty Sanchez night
before the wedding
and
marriage
contract
was
prepared
by
his
secretary
- After the wedding,
he
submitted
marriage
contract
and license with the
Local Civil Registrar
Atty Sanchez:
- He was asked by
Felicitas to be the
sponsor
of
the
wedding
- He
requested
a
certain Qualin to
secure the marriage
license which the
latter got
- He did not know

where the marriage

license
was
obtained
Felicitas Goo:
- Sought the help of
Atty Sanchez to
acquire
marriage
license
- Male went to their
house
with
application
for
marriage license
- Same person came
few
days
after
showing a marriage
license and giving it
to Atty Sanchez
- She did not read all
of the contents of
the
marriage
license and was told
that it was obtained
from Carmona
- She also testified
that a bigamy case
was filed agains
Syed
May Ann Ceriola:
- One of the sponsors
- Was
seen
in
wedding photos
- Her
testimony
corroborates that of
Felicitas and Atty
Sanchez

RTC ruled in favor of Syed declaring the marriage void ab

initio
o Gloria filed for a Motion for reconsideration
Court of Appeals granted Glorias
appeal for the following reasons:
1. Municipal
Civil
Registrar
failed to categorically state
that diligent search was
conducted thus certification
could
not
be
accorded
probative value
2. There
was
sufficient
testimonial and documentary
evidence that the couple had
been validly married which
gave weight to the fact that
Syed had admitted to having
signed the marriage contract
3. The
only
reason
Syed
instituted
petition
is
because of the bigamy case
filed against him.
Syed filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied
by the CA

**** THUS PETITION FOR REVIEW****

Court agreed with the RTC decision
Gloria failed to present the actual marriage license or
copy thereof and relied on the marriage contract as well
as the testimonies of her witnesses to prove existence of
license
o She failed to explain why the marriage license
was secured in Carmona, Cavite, a location
where, admittedly, neither party resided

She took no pains to apply for the license, so

she is not the best witness to testify to the
validity and existence of said license. Neither
could the other witnesses she presented prove
the existence of the marriage license, as none
of them applied for the license in Carmona,
Cavite.
Felicitas Goo, could not even testify as to the
contents of the license, having admitted to not
reading all of its contents.
Atty. Sanchez, one of the sponsors, whom
Gloria and Felicitas Goo approached for
assistance in securing the license, admitted not
knowing where the license came from.
Gloria failed to present this Qualin (who could
have testified as to how the license was
secured and thus impeached the certification of
the Municipal Civil Registrar and testimony of
her representative), the certification of the
Municipal Civil Registrar still enjoys probative
value.
Solemnizing officer testified that the marriage
contract and a copy of the marriage license
were submitted to the Local Civil Registrar of
Manila. 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.
In Carino vs Carino
o The certification of the Local Civil Registrar
that their office had no record of a marriage
license was adequate to prove the nonissuance of said license. The case of Cario
further held that the presumed validity of
the marriage of the parties had been
overcome, and that it became the burden of
the party alleging a valid marriage to prove
that the marriage was valid, and that the
required marriage license had been secured.
o Gloria has failed to discharge that burden,
and the only conclusion that can be reached
is that no valid marriage license was issued.
No marriage license was proven to have been
issued to Gloria and Syed, based on the
certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of
Carmona, Cavite and Glorias failure to produce a
copy of the alleged marriage license.
Marriage, having been solemnized without a
marriage license is voud ab initio
ANULLING
MARRIAGE
OF
PETITIONER
REINSTATED