Go-Bangayan v. Bangayan

6/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 700
G.R. No. 201061. July 3, 2013.*
SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN

BANGAYAN, JR., respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Postponements; It is well-

settled that a grant of a motion for continuance or postponement is
not a matter of right but is addressed to the discretion of the trial
court.―It is well-settled that a grant of a motion for continuance
or postponement is not a matter of right but is addressed to the
discretion of the trial court. In this case, Sally’s presentation of
evidence was scheduled on 28 February 2008. Thereafter, there
were six
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
703
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 703
Go-Bangayan vs. Bangayan, Jr.
resettings of the case: on 10 July 2008, 4 and 11 September 2008,

2 and 28 October 2008, and 28 November 2008. They were all
made at Sally’s instance. Before the scheduled hearing of 28
November 2008, the trial court warned Sally that in case she still
failed to present her evidence, the case would be submitted for
decision. On the date of the scheduled hearing, despite the
presence of other available witnesses, Sally insisted on presenting
Benjamin who was not even subpoenaed on that day. Sally’s
counsel insisted that the trial court could not dictate on the
priority of witnesses to be presented, disregarding the trial court’s
prior warning due to the numerous resettings of the case. Sally
could not complain that she had been deprived of her right to
present her evidence because all the postponements were at her
instance and she was warned by the trial court that it would
submit the case for decision should she still fail to present her
evidence on 28 November 2008.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b778a5a21b80fef51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20
Same; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; The certification

from the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance
of a marriage license and absent any suspicious circumstance, the
certification enjoys probative value, being issued by the officer
charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the
issuance of a marriage license.―On the purported marriage of
Benjamin and Sally, Teresita Oliveros (Oliveros), Registration
Officer II of the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City, testified that
there was no valid marriage license issued to Benjamin and Sally.
Oliveros confirmed that only Marriage Licence Nos. 6648100 to
6648150 were issued for the month of February 1982. Marriage
License No. N-07568 did not match the series issued for the
month. Oliveros further testified that the local civil registrar of
Pasig City did not issue Marriage License No. N-07568 to
Benjamin and Sally. The certification from the local civil registrar
is adequate to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license and
absent any suspicious circumstance, the certification enjoys
probative value, being issued by the officer charged under the law
to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage
license. Clearly, if indeed Benjamin and Sally entered into a
marriage contract, the marriage was void from the beginning for
lack of a marriage license.
Civil Law; Marriages; Void Marriages; Marriage License;
Under Article 35 of the Family Code, a marriage solemnized
without a license, except those covered by Article 34 where no
license is neces-
704
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
sary, “shall be void from the beginning.”―We see 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. The marriage
between Benjamin and Sally was also non-existent. Applying the
general rules on void or inexistent contracts under Article 1409 of
the Civil Code, contracts which are absolutely simulated or

fictitious are “inexistent and void from the beginning.” Thus, the
Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the trial court’s ruling
that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was null and void
ab initio and non-existent.
Criminal Law; Bigamy; For bigamy to exist, the second or
subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites for
validity except for the existence of a prior marriage.―For bigamy to
exist, the second or subsequent marriage must have all the
essential requisites for validity except for the existence of a prior
marriage. In this case, there was really no subsequent marriage.
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.
Civil Law; Marriages; Property Relations; Void Marriages;
Benjamin and Sally cohabitated without the benefit of marriage.
Thus, only the properties acquired by them through their actual
joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned
by them in common in proportion to their respective
contributions.―Benjamin and Sally cohabitated without the
benefit of marriage. Thus, only the properties acquired by them
through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or
industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their
respective contributions. Thus, both the
705
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 705
trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly excluded the 37

properties being claimed by Sally which were given by Benjamin’s
father to his children as advance inheritance. Sally’s Answer to
the petition before the trial court even admitted that “Benjamin’s
late father himself conveyed a number of properties to his
children and their respective spouses which included Sally.
Same; Same; Same; Land Registration; The words “married
to” preceding the name of a spouse are merely descriptive of the
civil status of the registered owner. Such words do not prove co-
ownership.―As regards the seven remaining properties, we rule
that the decision of the Court of Appeals is more in accord with
the evidence on record. Only the property covered by TCT No.
61722 was registered in the names of Benjamin and Sally as
spouses. The properties under TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860 were
in the name of Benjamin with the descriptive title “married to
Sally.” The property covered by CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783 were
registered in the name of Sally with the descriptive title “married
to Benjamin” while the properties under TCT Nos. N-193656 and
253681 were registered in the name of Sally as a single
individual. We have ruled that the words “married to” preceding
the name of a spouse are merely descriptive of the civil status of
the registered owner. Such words do not prove co-ownership.
Without proof of actual contribution from either or both spouses,
there can be no co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family
Code.
Administrative Law; Judges; Inhibition of Judges; The issue
of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and
sound discretion on the part of the judge.―We have ruled that the
issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience
and sound discretion on the part of the judge. To justify the call
for inhibition, there must be extrinsic evidence to establish bias,
bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error
which may be inferred from the decision or order itself. In this
case, we have sufficiently explained that Judge Gironella did not
err in submitting the case for decision because of Sally’s continued
refusal to present her evidence.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
706

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Leny L. Mauricio for petitioner.
Marissa V. Manalo for respondent.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the
17 August 2011 Decision2 and the 14 March 2012
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
94226.
The Antecedent Facts
On 15 March 2004, Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. (Benjamin)
filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage
and/or declaration of nullity of marriage before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 43 (trial court). The
case was docketed as Civil Case No. 04109401. Benjamin
alleged that on 10 September 1973, he married Azucena

Alegre (Azucena) in Caloocan City. They had three
children, namely, Rizalyn, Emmamylin, and Benjamin III.
In 1979, Benjamin developed a romantic relationship
with Sally Go-Bangayan (Sally) who was a customer in the
auto parts and supplies business owned by Benjamin’s
family. In December 1981, Azucena left for the United
States of America. In February 1982, Benjamin and Sally
lived together as husband and wife. Sally’s father was
against the relationship.
_______________
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Rollo, pp. 29-40. Penned by Associate Justice (now Supreme Court
Associate Justice) Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe with Associate Justices
Bienvenido L. Reyes (now also a Supreme Court Associate Justice) and
Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
3 Id., at p. 52. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with
Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring.
707
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 707

On 7 March 1982, in order to appease her father, Sally

brought Benjamin to an office in Santolan, Pasig City
where they signed a purported marriage contract. Sally,
knowing Benjamin’s marital status, assured him that the
marriage contract would not be registered.
Benjamin and Sally’s cohabitation produced two
children, Bernice and Bentley. During the period of their
cohabitation, they acquired the following real properties:
(1) property under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 61722 registered in the names of Benjamin and
Sally as spouses;
(2) properties under TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860
registered in the name of Benjamin, married to Sally;
(3) properties under Condominium Certificate of Title
(CCT) Nos. 8782 and 8783 registered in the name of
Sally, married to Benjamin; and
(4) properties under TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681
registered in the name of Sally as a single individual.
The relationship of Benjamin and Sally ended in 1994
when Sally left for Canada, bringing Bernice and Bentley
with her. She then 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. Benjamin also asked the trial court for the
partition of the properties he acquired with Sally in
accordance with Article 148 of the Family Code, for his
appointment as administrator of the properties during the
pendency of the case, and for the declaration of Bernice and
Bentley as illegitimate children. A total of 44 registered
properties became the subject of the partition before the
trial court. Aside from the seven properties enu-
708

merated by Benjamin in his petition, Sally named 37

properties in her answer.
After Benjamin presented his evidence, Sally filed a
demurrer to evidence which the trial court denied. Sally
filed a motion for reconsideration which the trial court also
denied. Sally filed a petition for certiorari before the Court
of Appeals and asked for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or injunction which the Court of
Appeals never issued. Sally then refused to present any
evidence before the trial court citing the pendency of her
petition before the Court of Appeals. The trial court gave
Sally several opportunities to present her evidence on 28
February 2008, 10 July 2008, 4 September 2008, 11
September 2008, 2 October 2008, 23 October 2008, and 28
November 2008. Despite repeated warnings from the trial
court, Sally still refused to present her evidence, prompting
the trial court to consider the case submitted for decision.
The Decision of the Trial Court
In a Decision4 dated 26 March 2009, the trial court ruled
in favor of Benjamin. The trial court gave weight to the
certification dated 21 July 2004 from the Pasig Local Civil
Registrar, which was confirmed during trial, that only
Marriage License Series Nos. 6648100 to 6648150 were
issued for the month of February 1982 and the purported
Marriage License No. N-07568 was not issued to Benjamin
and Sally.5 The trial court ruled that the marriage was not
recorded with the local civil registrar and the National
Statistics Office because it could not be registered due to
Benjamin’s subsisting marriage with Azucena.
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 107-123. Penned by Presiding Judge Roy G. Gironella.
5 Records, Vol. 2, p. 461.
709
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 709

The trial court ruled that the marriage between

Benjamin and Sally was not bigamous. The trial court
ruled that the second marriage was void not because of the
existence of the first marriage but because of other causes,
particularly, the lack of a marriage license. Hence, bigamy
was not committed in this case. The trial court did not rule
on the issue of the legitimacy status of Bernice and Bentley
because they were not parties to the case. The trial court
denied Sally’s claim for spousal support because she was
not married to Benjamin. The trial court likewise denied
support for Bernice and Bentley who were both of legal age
and did not ask for support.
On the issue of partition, the trial court ruled that Sally
could not claim the 37 properties she named in her answer
as part of her conjugal properties with Benjamin. The trial
court ruled that Sally was not legally married to Benjamin.
Further, the 37 properties that Sally was claiming were
owned by Benjamin’s parents who gave the properties to
their children, including Benjamin, as advance inheritance.
The 37 titles were in the names of Benjamin and his
brothers and the phrase “married to Sally Go” was merely
descriptive of Benjamin’s civil status in the title. As
regards the two lots under TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860, the
trial court found that they were bought by Benjamin using
his own money and that Sally failed to prove any actual
contribution of money, property or industry in their
purchase. The trial court found that Sally was a registered
co-owner of the lots covered by TCT Nos. 61722, N-193656,
and 253681 as well as the two condominium units under
CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783. However, the trial court ruled
that the lot under TCT No. 61722 and the two
condominium units were purchased from the earnings of
Benjamin alone. The trial court ruled that the properties
under TCT Nos. 61722, 61720, and 190860 and CCT Nos.
8782 and 8783 were part of the conjugal partnership of
Benjamin and Azucena, without prejudice to Benjamin’s
right to dispute his conjugal state with Azucena in a
separate proceeding.
710

The trial court further ruled that Sally acted in bad faith
because she knew that Benjamin was married to Azucena.
Applying Article 148 of the Family Code, the trial court
forfeited Sally’s share in the properties covered under TCT
Nos. N-193656 and 253681 in favor of Bernice and Bentley
while Benjamin’s share reverted to his conjugal ownership
with Azucena.
The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the marriage of BENJAMIN

BANGAYAN, JR. and SALLY S. GO on March 7, 1982 at
Santolan, Pasig, Metro Manila is hereby declared NULL
and VOID AB INITIO. It is further declared NON-
EXISTENT.
Respondent’s claim as co-owner or conjugal owner of the
thirty-seven (37) properties under TCT Nos. 17722, 17723,
17724, 17725, 126397, RT-73480, and RT-86821; in Manila,
TCT Nos. 188949, 188950, 188951, 193035, 194620, 194621,
194622, 194623, 194624, 194625, 194626, 194627, 194628,
194629, 194630, 194631, 194632, 194633, 194634, 194635,
194636, 194637, 194638, 194639, 198651, 206209, 206210,
206211, 206213 and 206215 is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The registered owners, namely: Benjamin B.
Bangayan, Jr., Roberto E. Bangayan, Ricardo B. Bangayan
and Rodrigo B. Bangayan are the owners to the exclusion of
“Sally Go” Consequently, the Registry of Deeds for Quezon
City and Manila are directed to delete the words “married
to Sally Go” from these thirty[-]seven (37) titles.
Properties under TCT Nos. 61722, 61720 and 190860,
CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783 are properties acquired from
petitioner’s money without contribution from respondent,
hence, these are properties of the petitioner and his lawful
wife. Consequently, petitioner is appointed the
administrator of these five (5) properties. Respondent is
ordered to submit an accounting of her collections of income
from these five (5) properties within thirty (30) days from
notice hereof. Except for lot under TCT No. 61722,
respondent is further directed within
711
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 711

thirty (30) days from notice hereof to turn over and

surrender control and possession of these properties
including the documents of title to the petitioner.
On the properties under TCT Nos. N-193656 and N-
253681, these properties are under co-ownership of the
parties shared by them equally. However, the share of
respondent is declared FORFEITED in favor of Bernice Go
Bangayan and Bentley Go Bangayan. The share of the
petitioner shall belong to his conjugal ownership with
Azucena Alegre. The liquidation, partition and distribution
of these two (2) properties shall be further processed
pursuant to Section 21 of A.M. No. 02-11-10 of March 15,
2003.
Other properties shall be adjudicated in a later
proceeding pursuant to Section 21 of A.M. No. 02-11-10.
Respondent’s claim of spousal support, children support
and counterclaims are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Further, no declaration of the status of the parties’ children.
No other relief granted.
Furnish copy of this decision to the parties, their
counsels, the Trial Prosecutor, the Solicitor General and the
Registry of Deeds in Manila, Quezon City and Caloocan.
SO ORDERED.6
Sally filed a Verified and Vigorous Motion for Inhibition

with Motion for Reconsideration. In its Order dated 27
August 2009,7 the trial court denied the motion. Sally
appealed the trial court’s decision before the Court of
Appeals.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
In its 17 August 2011 Decision, the Court of Appeals
partly granted the appeal. The Court of Appeals ruled that
the trial
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 122-123.
7 Id., at pp. 124-128.
712

court did not err in submitting the case for decision. The
Court of Appeals noted that there were six resettings of the
case, all made at the instance of Sally, for the initial
reception of evidence, and Sally was duly warned to
present her evidence on the next hearing or the case would

be deemed submitted for decision. However, despite the
warning, Sally still failed to present her evidence. She
insisted on presenting Benjamin who was not around and
was not subpoenaed despite the presence of her other
witnesses.
The Court of Appeals rejected Sally’s allegation that
Benjamin failed to prove his action for declaration of
nullity of marriage. The Court of Appeals ruled that
Benjamin’s action was based on his prior marriage to
Azucena and there was no evidence that the marriage was
annulled or dissolved before Benjamin contracted the
second marriage with Sally. The Court of Appeals ruled
that the trial court committed no error in declaring
Benjamin’s marriage to Sally null and void.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the property relations of
Benjamin and Sally was governed by Article 148 of the
Family Code. The Court of Appeals ruled that only the
properties acquired by the parties through their actual
joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be
owned by them in common in proportion to their respective
contribution. The Court of Appeals ruled that the 37
properties being claimed by Sally rightfully belong to
Benjamin and his siblings.
As regards the seven properties claimed by both parties,
the Court of Appeals ruled that only the properties under
TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860 registered in the name of
Benjamin belong to him exclusively because he was able to
establish that they were acquired by him solely. The Court
of Appeals found that the properties under TCT Nos. N-
193656 and 253681 and under CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783
were exclusive properties of Sally in the absence of proof of
Benjamin’s actual contribution in their purchase. The
Court of Appeals ruled that the property under TCT No.
61722 registered in the names of Benjamin and Sally shall
be owned by them in
713
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 713

common, to be shared equally. However, the share of

Benjamin shall accrue to the conjugal partnership under
his existing marriage with Azucena while Sally’s share
shall accrue to her in the absence of a clear and convincing
proof of bad faith.
Finally, the Court of Appeals ruled that Sally failed to

present clear and convincing evidence that would show bias
and prejudice on the part of the trial judge that would
justify his inhibition from the case.
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal

is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Order
dated March 26, 2009 and August 27, 2009, respectively, of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 43, in Civil Case
No. 04-109401 are hereby AFFIRMED with modification
declaring TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860 to be exclusively
owned by the petitioner-appellee while the properties under
TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681 as well as [CCT] Nos. 8782
and 8783 shall be solely owned by the respondent-appellant.
On the other hand, TCT No. 61722 shall be owned by them
and common and to be shared equally but the share of the
petitioner-appellee shall accrue to the conjugal partnership
under his first marriage while the share of respondent-
appellant shall accrue to her. The rest of the decision
stands.
SO ORDERED.8
Sally moved for the reconsideration of the Court of

Appeals’ decision. In its 14 March 2012 Resolution, the
Court of Appeals denied her motion.
Hence, the petition before this Court.
_______________
8 Id., at p. 40.
714

The Issues
Sally raised the following issues before this Court:
(1) Whether the Court of Appeals committed a
reversible error in affirming the trial court’s ruling
that Sally had waived her right to present evidence;
reversible error in affirming the trial court’s decision
declaring the marriage between Benjamin and Sally
null and void ab initio and non-existent; and
reversible error in affirming with modification the
trial court’s decision regarding the property relations

of Benjamin and Sally.
The Ruling of this Court
The petition has no merit.
Waiver of Right to Present Evidence
Sally alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in
affirming the trial court’s ruling that she waived her right
to present her evidence. Sally alleges that in not allowing
her to present evidence that she and Benjamin were
married, the trial court abandoned its duty to protect
marriage as an inviolable institution.
It is well-settled that a grant of a motion for continuance
or postponement is not a matter of right but is addressed to
the discretion of the trial court.9 In this case, Sally’s
presentation of evidence was scheduled on 28 February
2008. Thereafter, there were six resettings of the case: on
10 July 2008, 4 and
_______________
9 See Bautista v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157219, 28 May 2004, 430
SCRA 353.
715
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 715

11 September 2008, 2 and 28 October 2008, and 28

November 2008. They were all made at Sally’s instance.
Before the scheduled hearing of 28 November 2008, the
trial court warned Sally that in case she still failed to
present her evidence, the case would be submitted for
decision. On the date of the scheduled hearing, despite the
presence of other available witnesses, Sally insisted on
presenting Benjamin who was not even subpoenaed on that
day. Sally’s counsel insisted that the trial court could not
dictate on the priority of witnesses to be presented,
disregarding the trial court’s prior warning due to the
numerous resettings of the case. Sally could not complain
that she had been deprived of her right to present her
evidence because all the postponements were at her
instance and she was warned by the trial court that it
would submit the case for decision should she still fail to
present her evidence on 28 November 2008.
We agree with the trial court that by her continued
refusal to present her evidence, she was deemed to have
waived her right to present them. As pointed out by the
Court of Appeals, Sally’s continued failure to present her

evidence despite the opportunities given by the trial court
showed her lack of interest to proceed with the case.
Further, it was clear that Sally was delaying the case
because she was waiting for the decision of the Court of
Appeals on her petition questioning the trial court’s denial
of her demurrer to evidence, despite the fact that the Court
of Appeals did not issue any temporary restraining order as
Sally prayed for. Sally could not accuse the trial court of
failing to protect marriage as an inviolable institution
because the trial court also has the duty to ensure that
trial proceeds despite the deliberate delay and refusal to
proceed by one of the parties.10
_______________
10 Id.
716

Validity of the Marriage between Benjamin and Sally

Sally alleges that both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals recognized her marriage to Benjamin because a
marriage could not be non-existent and, at the same time,
null and void ab initio. Sally further alleges that if she
were allowed to present her evidence, she would have
proven her marriage to Benjamin. To prove her marriage to
Benjamin, Sally asked this Court to consider that in
acquiring real properties, Benjamin listed her as his wife
by declaring he was “married to” her; that Benjamin was
the informant in their children’s birth certificates where he
stated that he was their father; and that Benjamin
introduced her to his family and friends as his wife. In
contrast, Sally claims that there was no real property
registered in the names of Benjamin and Azucena. Sally
further alleges that Benjamin was not the informant in the
birth certificates of his children with Azucena.
First, Benjamin’s marriage to Azucena on 10 September
1973 was duly established before the trial court, evidenced
by a certified true copy of their marriage contract. At the
time Benjamin and Sally entered into a purported
marriage on 7 March 1982, the marriage between
Benjamin and Azucena was valid and subsisting.
On the purported marriage of Benjamin and Sally,
Teresita Oliveros (Oliveros), Registration Officer II of the
Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City, testified that there was

no valid marriage license issued to Benjamin and Sally.
Oliveros confirmed that only Marriage Licence Nos.
6648100 to 6648150 were issued for the month of February
1982. Marriage License No. N-07568 did not match the
series issued for the month. Oliveros further testified that
the local civil registrar of Pasig City did not issue Marriage
License No. N-07568 to Benjamin and Sally. The certifica-
717
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 717

tion from the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the

non-issuance of a marriage license and absent any
suspicious circumstance, the certification enjoys probative
value, being issued by the officer charged under the law to
keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a
marriage license.11 Clearly, if indeed Benjamin and Sally
entered into a marriage contract, the marriage was void
from the beginning for lack of a marriage license.12
It was also established before the trial court that the
purported marriage between Benjamin and Sally was not
recorded with the local civil registrar and the National
Statistics Office. The lack of record was certified by Julieta
B. Javier, Registration Officer IV of the Office of the Local
Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Pasig;13 Teresita R.
Ignacio, Chief of the Archives Division of the Records
Management and Archives Office, National Commission for
Culture and the Arts;14 and Lourdes J. Hufana, Director
III, Civil Registration Department of the National
Statistics Office.15 The documentary and testimonial
evidence proved that there was no
_______________
11 Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño, 403 Phil. 861; 351 SCRA 127 (2001).
12 Article 35 of the Family Code states:
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even
with the consent of parents or guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform
marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both
parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal
authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without a license, except those covered by the
preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article

41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to
the identity of the other; and
(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.
14 Id., at p. 459.
15 Id., at p. 460.
718

marriage between Benjamin and Sally. As pointed out by

the trial court, the marriage between Benjamin and Sally
“was made only in jest”16 and “a simulated marriage, at the
instance of [Sally], intended to cover her up from expected
social humiliation coming from relatives, friends and the
society especially from her parents seen as Chinese
conservatives.”17 In short, it was a fictitious marriage.
The fact that Benjamin was the informant in the birth
certificates of Bernice and Bentley was not a proof of the
marriage between Benjamin and Sally. This Court notes
that Benjamin was the informant in Bernice’s birth
certificate which stated that Benjamin and Sally were
married on 8 March 198218 while Sally was the informant
in Bentley’s birth certificate which also stated that
Benjamin and Sally were married on 8 March 1982.19
Benjamin and Sally were supposedly married on 7 March
1982 which did not match the dates reflected on the birth
certificates.
We see 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 3520 which made their marriage void ab
initio. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally was also
non-existent. Applying the general rules on
_______________
16 Rollo, p. 112.
17 Id.
19 Id., at p. 66.
20 Supra note 12.
719
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 719

void or inexistent contracts under Article 1409 of the Civil

Code, contracts which are absolutely simulated or fictitious
are “inexistent and void from the beginning.”21 Thus, the
Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the trial court’s
ruling that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was
null and void ab initio and non-existent.
Except for the modification in the distribution of
properties, the Court of Appeals affirmed in all aspects the
trial court’s decision and ruled that “[t]he rest of the
decision stands.”22 While the Court of Appeals did not
discuss bigamous marriages, it can be gleaned from the
dispositive portion of the decision declaring that “[t]he rest
of the decision stands” that the Court of Appeals adopted
the trial court’s discussion that the marriage between
Benjamin and Sally is not bigamous. The trial court stated:
On whether or not the parties’ marriage is bigamous

under the concept of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code,
the marriage is not bigamous. It is required that the first or
former marriage shall not be null and void. The marriage of
the petitioner to Azucena shall be assumed as the one that
is valid, there being no evidence to the contrary and there is
no trace of invalidity or irregularity on the face of their
marriage contract. However, if the second marriage was
void not because of the existence of the first marriage but
for other causes such as lack of license, the crime of bigamy
was not committed. In People v. De Lara [CA, 51 O.G.,
4079], it was held that what was committed was contracting
marriage against the provisions of laws not under Article
349 but Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code. Concluding,
the marriage of the parties is therefore not bigamous
because
_______________
21 Article 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the
beginning:
x x x x
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
x x x x
22 Rollo, p. 40.
720

there was no marriage license. The daring and repeated

stand of respondent that she is legally married to petitioner
cannot, in any instance, be sustained. Assuming that her
marriage to petitioner has the marriage license, yet the
same would be bigamous, civilly or criminally as it would be
invalidated by a prior existing valid marriage of petitioner
and Azucena.23
For bigamy to exist, the second or subsequent marriage

must have all the essential requisites for validity except for
the existence of a prior marriage.24 In this case, there was
really no subsequent marriage. 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.
Property Relations Between Benjamin and Sally
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the property
relations of Benjamin and Sally is governed by Article 148
of the Family Code which states:
Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the

preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of
the parties through their actual joint contribution of money,
property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in
proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence
of proof to the contrary, their contributions and
corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same
rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money
and evidences of credit.
_______________
23 Id., at pp. 112-113.
24 See Nollora, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 191425, 7 September 2011, 657 SCRA
330.
721
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 721

If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or

her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute
community of conjugal partnership existing in such valid
marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly
married to another, his or her share shall be forfeited in the
manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding
Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply
even if both parties are in bad faith.
Benjamin and Sally cohabitated without the benefit of

marriage. Thus, only the properties acquired by them
through their actual joint contribution of money, property,
or industry shall be owned by them in common in
proportion to their respective contributions. Thus, both the
trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly excluded the
37 properties being claimed by Sally which were given by
Benjamin’s father to his children as advance inheritance.
Sally’s Answer to the petition before the trial court even
admitted that “Benjamin’s late father himself conveyed a
number of properties to his children and their respective
spouses which included Sally x x x.”25
As regards the seven remaining properties, we rule that
the decision of the Court of Appeals is more in accord with
the evidence on record. Only the property covered by TCT
No. 61722 was registered in the names of Benjamin and
Sally as spouses.26 The properties under TCT Nos. 61720
and 190860 were in the name of Benjamin27 with the
descriptive title “married to Sally.” The property covered by
CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783 were registered in the name of
Sally28 with the descriptive title “married to Benjamin”
while the properties under TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681
were registered in the name of Sally as a single individual.
We have ruled that the
_______________
26 Id., at p. 23.
27 Id., at pp. 24-26.
28 Id., at pp. 27-28.
722

words “married to” preceding the name of a spouse are

merely descriptive of the civil status of the registered
owner.29 Such words do not prove co-ownership. Without
proof of actual contribution from either or both spouses,
there can be no co-ownership under Article 148 of the
Family Code.30
Inhibition of the Trial Judge
Sally questions the refusal of Judge Roy G. Gironella
(Judge Gironella) to inhibit himself from hearing the case.
She cited the failure of Judge Gironella to accommodate
her in presenting her evidence. She further alleged that
Judge Gironella practically labeled her as an opportunist in
his decision, showing his partiality against her and in favor
of Benjamin.
We have ruled that the issue of voluntary inhibition is
primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on
the part of the judge.31 To justify the call for inhibition,
there must be extrinsic evidence to establish bias, bad
faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable
error which may be inferred from the decision or order
itself.32 In this case, we have sufficiently explained that
Judge Gironella did not err in submitting the case for
decision because of Sally’s continued refusal to present her
evidence.
We reviewed the decision of the trial court and while
Judge Gironella may have used uncomplimentary words in
writing the decision, they are not enough to prove his
prejudice against Sally or show that he acted in bad faith
in deciding the case that would justify the call for his
voluntary inhibition.
_______________
29 Acre v. Yuttikki, 560 Phil. 495; 534 SCRA 224 (2007).
30 Id.
31 Kilosbayan Foundation v. Janolo, Jr., G.R. No. 180543, 27 July
2010, 625 SCRA 684.
32 Ramiscal, Jr. v. Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 173057-74, 27 September
2010, 631 SCRA 312.
723
VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 723

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the 17 August 2011

Decision and the 14 March 2012 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94226.

SO ORDERED.
Brion, Bersamin,** Del Castillo and Perez, JJ., concur.
Judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.―In a void marriage, regardless of its cause, the

property relations of the parties during the period of
cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148
of the Family Code. (Diño vs. Diño, 640 SCRA 178 [2011])
For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the
following elements must be present: (1) The man and the
woman must be capacitated to marry each other; (2) They
live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
(3) Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their
marriage is void. (Ibid.)
――o0o――
_______________
** Designated additional member per Raffle dated 8 October 2012.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Go-Bangayan v. Bangayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Go-Bangayan v. Bangayan

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

Go-Bangayan v. Bangayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 700

G.R. No. 201061. July 3, 2013.*

SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Postponements; It is well-

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 703

Go-Bangayan vs. Bangayan, Jr.

resettings of the case: on 10 July 2008, 4 and 11 September 2008,

Same; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; The certification

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go-Bangayan vs. Bangayan, Jr.

sary, “shall be void from the beginning.”―We see no inconsistency

the Civil Code, contracts which are absolutely simulated or

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 705

Go-Bangayan vs. Bangayan, Jr.

trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly excluded the 37

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

alleged that on 10 September 1973, he married Azucena

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 707

On 7 March 1982, in order to appease her father, Sally

their simulated marriage contract as evidence. Benjamin,

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

merated by Benjamin in his petition, Sally named 37

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 709

The trial court ruled that the marriage between

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ACCORDINGLY, the marriage of BENJAMIN

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 711

thirty (30) days from notice hereof to turn over and

Sally filed a Verified and Vigorous Motion for Inhibition

712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

present her evidence on the next hearing or the case would

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 713

common, to be shared equally. However, the share of

Finally, the Court of Appeals ruled that Sally failed to

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal

Sally moved for the reconsideration of the Court of

714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

trial court’s decision regarding the property relations

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 715

11 September 2008, 2 and 28 October 2008, and 28

Court of Appeals, Sally’s continued failure to present her

716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Validity of the Marriage between Benjamin and Sally

Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City, testified that there was

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 717

tion from the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the

(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article

718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

marriage between Benjamin and Sally. As pointed out by

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 719

void or inexistent contracts under Article 1409 of the Civil

On whether or not the parties’ marriage is bigamous

720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

there was no marriage license. The daring and repeated

For bigamy to exist, the second or subsequent marriage

Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the