[G.R. No. 127263.
April 12, 2000]
FILIPINA Y. SY, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, BRANCH XLI, and FERNANDO
SY, respondents.
DECISION
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,[28] as follows:
ATTY. RAZON: In the last hearing, you said that you were married on November
15,1973?
FILIPINA SY: Yes, Sir.
November 15, 1973, also appears as the date of marriage of the parents in both their son's and
daughter's birth certificates, which are also attached as Annexes " B" and "C" in the petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court, and thereafter marked as Exhibits "B"
and "C" in the course of the trial. [29] These pieces of evidence on record plainly and indubitably show that
on the day of the marriage ceremony, there was no marriage license. A marriage license is a formal
requirement; its absence renders the marriage void ab initio. In addition, the marriage contract shows
that the marriage license, numbered 6237519, was issued in Carmona, Cavite, yet, neither petitioner nor
private respondent ever resided in Carmona.[30]
Carefully reviewing the documents and the pleadings on record, we find that indeed petitioner did not
expressly state in her petition before the trial court that there was incongruity between the date of the
actual celebration of their marriage and the date of the issuance of their marriage license. From the
documents she presented, the marriage license was issued on September 17,1974, almost one year after
the ceremony took place on November 15, 1973. The ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was
indeed contracted without a marriage license. Nowhere do we find private respondent denying these
dates on record. Article 80 of the Civil Code[31] 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 [32] 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. Es msc
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. [33]
The remaining issue on the psychological incapacity of private respondent need no longer detain us. It is
mooted by our conclusion that the marriage of petitioner to respondent is void ab initio for lack of a
marriage license at the time their marriage was solemnized. Esmm is
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando,
Pampanga, dated December 9,1993 as well as the Decision promulgated on May 21, 1996 by the Court of
Appeals and its Resolution dated November 21, 1996, in CA-G.R. No. 44144 are set aside. The marriage
celebrated on November 15, 1973 between petitioner Filipina Yap and private respondent Fernando Sy is
hereby declared void ab initio for lack of marriage license at the time of celebration. No pronouncement
as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
