Abbas v. Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013

FACTS: Syed, a Pakistani citizen, and Gloria, a Filipino citizen, met in Taiwan in 1991. He arrived in the Philippines and on January 9, 1993, at around 5 o’clock in the afternoon, he was at his mother-in-law’s residence, in Malate, Manila, when his mother-in-law arrived with two men. He was told that he was going to undergo some ceremony, one of the requirements for his stay in the Philippines, but was not told of the nature of said ceremony where he and Gloria signed a document. He claimed that he only found out that it was a marriage contract when Gloria told him. He further testified that he did not go to Carmona, Cavite to apply for a marriage license, and that he had never resided in that area. In July of 2003, he went to the Office of the Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, to check on their marriage license. The Municipal Civil Registrar, issued a certification stating that the marriage license number appearing in the marriage contract he submitted was the number of another marriage license issued to another couple. He also alleged that Gloria had filed bigamy cases against him in 2001 and 2002. On the other hand, Gloria presented her own side. Rev. Mario Dauz, a minister of the Gospel and a brgy captain stated that he is authorized to solemnize marriage and that he was doing it since 1982 and he is familiar with the requirements. There were two witnesses, one of them was Atty Sanchez who handed him the marriage license on the day of the wedding. Gloria testified that a certain Qualin went to their house and said that he will get the marriage license for them, and after several days returned with an application for marriage license for them to sign, which she and Syed did. After Qualin returned with the marriage license, they gave the license to Atty. Sanchez who gave it to Rev. Dauz, the solemnizing officer. Gloria also alleged that she has a daughter with Syed. She filed a bigamy case because Syed married a certain Maria Corazon Buenaventura. RTC’s ruling: no marriage license, neither of the parties was a resident of Carmona, Cavite. Void ab initio. CA’s ruling: granted Gloria’s appeal. Marriage is valid and subsisting. Issue: W/N the marriage was valid.

ISSUE: W/N their marriage is valid

RULING: 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.

It is telling that Gloria failed to present their marriage license or a copy thereof to the court. 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. Her mother, 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. The task of applying for the license was delegated to a certain Qualin, who could have testified as to how the license was secured and thus impeached the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar as well as the testimony of her representative. As Gloria failed to present this Qualin, the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar still enjoys probative value.

It is also noted that the 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.

This marriage cannot be characterized as among the exemptions, and thus, having been solemnized without a marriage license, is void ab initio. 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.