Filipina Sy, Petitioner vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, The Honorable Regional Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch Xli, and Fernando SY, Respondents

1. FILIPINA SY, petitioner vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, BRANCH XLI, AND FERNANDO
SY, respondents.
G.R. No. 127263. April 12, 2000.
TOPIC: Lack of marriage license
FACTS:
1. November 15, 1973- Filipina Sy and Fernando Sy got married.
2. Fernando left their conjugal dwelling.
3. 2 children were born out of their marriage. Frederick, their son went to his father's residence.
4. Filipina filed for legal separation. She was punched at the different parts of her body and was even
choked by his husband when she started spanking their son when the latter ignored her while she was
talking to him.
5. The pieces of evidence on record showed that on the day of the marriage ceremony, there was no
marriage license.
6. The marriage contract showed that the marriage license, numbered 6237519, was issued in Carmona
Cavite, yet, neither both parties ever resided in Carmona.
7. Also, the marriage license was issued almost a year after the ceremony took place.
a) Petitioner’s Arguments (Filipina Sy)

Petitioner states that though she did not categorically state in her petition for annulment of marriage
before the trial court that the incongruity in the dates of the marriage license and the celebration of the
marriage itself would lead to the conclusion 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 license and marriage certificate, September 17,
1974, is contained in their marriage contract which was attached as Annex "A" in her petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court, and thereafter marked as Exhibit "A"
in the course of the trial. 26 The date of celebration of their marriage at Our Lady of Lourdes, Sta.
Teresita Parish, on November 15, 1973, is admitted both by petitioner and private respondent, as
stated in paragraph three of petitioner's petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage
before the trial court, and private respondent's answer admitting it. 27 This fact was also affirmed by
petitioner, in open court, on January 22, 1993 during her direct examination.
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Fernando Sy)
Respondent was not found denying the dates on record.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is void from the beginning for lac
of a marriage license at the time of the ceremony.
FINDINGS OF THE Lower Court:

The Regional Trial Court granted the petition on the grounds of repeated physical violence and sexual
infidelity, and issued a decree of legal separation. It awarded custody of their daughter Farrah Sheryll
to petitioner, and their son Frederick to respondent. In 1992, Filipina filed a petition for the
declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to her husband Fernando on the ground of
psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court denied the petition. It stated that the alleged acts
of the respondent as cited by petitioner do not constitute psychological incapacity, which may warrant
the declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage.
FINDINGS OF THE Court of Appeals:

Affirmed RTC ruling. Court of Appeals held that petitioner failed to show that the alleged psychological
incapacity of respondent had existed at the time of the celebration of their marriage. It reiterated the
finding of the trial court that the couple's marital problems surfaced only in 1983, or almost ten years
from the date of the celebration of their marriage. And prior to their separation in 1983, they were
living together harmoniously.
Rule:
Art 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
xxx
2. A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in chap 2.
Art 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio,
except as stated in art 35 (2).
xxx
An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties
responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.
Application:
Article 80 of the Civil Code is clearly applicable in this case. There being no claim of an exceptional
character, the purported marriage between petitioner and private respondent could not be classified
among those enumerated in Articles 72-79 of the Civil Code. We thus conclude that under Article 80
of the Civil Code, the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is void from the beginning.
We note that their marriage certificate and marriage license are only photocopies. So are the birth
certificates of their son Frederick and daughter Farrah Sheryll. Nevertheless, these documents were
marked as Exhibits during the course of the trial below, which shows that these have been examined
and admitted by the trial court, with no objections having been made as to their authenticity and due
execution. Likewise, no objection was interposed to petitioner's testimony in open court when she
affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their marriage was on November 15, 1973. We are
of the view, therefore, that having been admitted in evidence, with the adverse party failing to timely
object thereto, these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained therein.
Conclusion:
A marriage license is a formal requirement, the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio.
Hence, the Court concluded that the marriage between the petitioner and private respondent was void
from the beginning. The issue on psychological incapacity of private respondent was mooted by the
conclusion that the marriage was void ab initio for lack of marriage license at the time the marriage
was solemnized.

Filipina Sy, Petitioner vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, The Honorable Regional Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch Xli, and Fernando SY, Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filipina Sy, Petitioner vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, The Honorable Regional Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch Xli, and Fernando SY, Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Filipina Sy, Petitioner vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, The Honorable Regional Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch Xli, and Fernando SY, Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. FILIPINA SY, petitioner vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE

TOPIC: Lack of marriage license

a) Petitioner’s Arguments (Filipina Sy)

FINDINGS OF THE Lower Court:

FINDINGS OF THE Court of Appeals:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.