Abbas v. Abbas

download Abbas v. Abbas

of 21

  • date post

    02-Nov-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    32
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

description

Persons and Family Case

Transcript of Abbas v. Abbas

  • 7/7/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME689

    http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e646c20340268dff3000a0094004f00ee/p/AML043/?username=Guest 1/21

    G.R. No. 183896.January 30, 2013.*

    SYED AZHAR ABBAS, petitioner, vs. GLORIA GOOABBAS, respondent.

    Civil Law Family Law Marriages Formal Requisites ofMarriage.As the marriage of Gloria and Syed was solemnized onJanu

    _______________

    *THIRD DIVISION.

    647

    VOL. 689, JANUARY 30, 2013 647

    Abbas vs. Abbas

    ary 9, 1993, Executive Order No. 209, or the Family Code of thePhilippines, is the applicable law. The pertinent provisions thatwould apply to this particular case are Articles 3, 4 and 35(3),which read as follows: Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriageare: (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer (2) A valid marriagelicense except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Titleand (3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with theappearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizingofficer and their personal declaration that they take each other ashusband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses oflegal age. Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formalrequisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except asstated in Article 35(2). A defect in any of the essential requisitesshall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45. Anirregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity ofthe marriage but the party or parties responsible for theirregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administrativelyliable. Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from thebeginning: xxxx (3) Those solemnized without a license, except

  • 7/7/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME689

    http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e646c20340268dff3000a0094004f00ee/p/AML043/?username=Guest 2/21

    those covered by the preceding Chapter.

    Remedial Law Evidence Disputable PresumptionsPresumption of Regularity Under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rulesof Court, it is a disputable presumption that an official duty hasbeen regularly performed, absent contradiction or other evidence tothe contrary The presumption of regularity of official acts may berebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure toperform a duty.Under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,it is a disputable presumption that an official duty has beenregularly performed, absent contradiction or other evidence to thecontrary. We held, The presumption of regularity of official actsmay be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failureto perform a duty. No such affirmative evidence was shown thatthe Municipal Civil Registrar was lax in performing her duty ofchecking the records of their office, thus the presumption muststand. In fact, proof does exist of a diligent search having beenconducted, as Marriage License No. 996967 was indeed locatedand submitted to the court. The fact that the names in saidlicense do not correspond to those of Gloria and Syed does notoverturn the presumption that the registrar conducted a diligentsearch of the records of her office.

    648

    648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

    Abbas vs. Abbas

    Civil Law Family Law Marriages Marriage LicenseEvidence The certification of the Local Civil Registrar that theiroffice had no record of a marriage license was adequate to provethe nonissuance of said license.In the case of Cario v. Cario,following the case of Republic, it was held that the certification ofthe Local Civil Registrar that their office had no record of amarriage license was adequate to prove the nonissuance of saidlicense. The case of Cario further held that the presumedvalidity of the marriage of the parties had been overcome, andthat it became the burden of the party alleging a valid marriageto prove that the marriage was valid, and that the requiredmarriage license had been secured. Gloria has failed to dischargethat burden, and the only conclusion that can be reached is thatno valid marriage license was issued. It cannot be said that therewas a simple irregularity in the marriage license that would notaffect the validity of the marriage, as no license was presented by

  • 7/7/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME689

    http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e646c20340268dff3000a0094004f00ee/p/AML043/?username=Guest 3/21

    the respondent. No marriage license was proven to have beenissued to Gloria and Syed, based on the certification of theMunicipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite and Glorias failureto produce a copy of the alleged marriage license.

    Same Same Same Same Article 35(3) of the Family Codealso provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is voidfrom the beginning, except those exempt from the licenserequirement under Articles 27 to 34, Chapter 2, Title I of the sameCode.All the evidence cited by the CA to show that a weddingceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was signed doesnot operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license. Article4 of the Family Code is clear when it says, The absence of any ofthe essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage voidab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2). Article 35(3) of theFamily Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without alicense is void from the beginning, except those exempt from thelicense requirement under Articles 27 to 34, Chapter 2, Title I ofthe same Code.

    PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision andresolution of the Court of Appeals.

    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

    649

    VOL. 689, JANUARY 30, 2013 649Abbas vs. Abbas

    VELASCO, JR.,J.:This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

    of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, questioning theDecision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 11,2008 in CAG.R. CV No. 86760, which reversed theDecision2 in Civil Case No. 030382CFM dated October 5,2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 109, PasayCity, and the CA Resolution dated July 24, 2008, denyingpetitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision.

    The present case stems from a petition filed bypetitioner Syed Azhar Abbas (Syed) for the declaration ofnullity of his marriage to Gloria GooAbbas (Gloria) withthe RTC of Pasay City, docketed as Civil Case No. 030382CFM, and raffled to RTC Branch 109. Syed alleged theabsence of a marriage license, as provided for in Article 4,Chapter I, Title 1 of Executive Order No. 269, otherwise

  • 7/7/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME689

    http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e646c20340268dff3000a0094004f00ee/p/AML043/?username=Guest 4/21

    known as the Family Code of the Philippines, as a groundfor the annulment of his marriage to Gloria.

    In the Marriage Contract3 of Gloria and Syed, it isstated that Marriage License No. 9969967, issued atCarmona, Cavite on January 8, 1993, was presented to thesolemnizing officer. It is this information that is crucial tothe resolution of this case.

    At the trial court, Syed, a Pakistani citizen, testifiedthat he met Gloria, a Filipino citizen, in Taiwan in 1991,and they were married on August 9, 1992 at the TaipeiMosque in Taiwan.4 He arrived in the Philippines inDecember of 1992. On January 9, 1993, at around 5 oclockin the afternoon, he was

    _______________1Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. LibreaLeagogo and concurred

    in by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Myrna DimarananVidal.

    2Penned by Judge Tingaraan U. Guiling.3Rollo, p. 13.4Id., at p. 47.

    650

    650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAbbas vs. Abbas

    at his motherinlaws residence, located at 2676 F. MuozSt., Malate, Manila, when his motherinlaw arrived withtwo men. He testified that he was told that he was going toundergo some ceremony, one of the requirements for hisstay in the Philippines, but was not told of the nature ofsaid ceremony. During the ceremony he and Gloria signeda document. He claimed that he did not know that theceremony was a marriage until Gloria told him later. Hefurther testified that he did not go to Carmona, Cavite toapply for a marriage license, and that he had never residedin that area. In July of 2003, he went to the Office of theCivil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, to check on theirmarriage license, and was asked to show a copy of theirmarriage contract wherein the marriage license numbercould be found.5 The Municipal Civil Registrar, LeodiviniaC. Encarnacion, issued a certification on July 11, 2003 tothe effect that the marriage license number appearing in

  • 7/7/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME689

    http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e646c20340268dff3000a0094004f00ee/p/AML043/?username=Guest 5/21

    the marriage contract he submitted, Marriage License No.9969967, was the number of another marriage licenseissued to a certain Arlindo Getalado and MyraMabilangan.6 Said certification reads as follows:

    11 July 2003TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:This is to certify as per Registry Records of Marriage License filedin this office, Marriage License No. 9969967 was issued in favor ofMR. ARLINDO GETALADO and MISS MYRA MABILANGAN onJanuary 19, 1993.No Marriage License appear [sic] to have been issued to MR.SYED AZHAR ABBAS and MISS GLORIA F. GOO on January 8,1993.This certification is being issued to Mr. Syed Azhar Abbas forwhatever legal purpose or intents it may serve.7

    _______________5Id.6Id., at p. 12.7Id., at p. 10.

    651

    VOL. 689, JANUARY 30, 2013 651Abbas vs. Abbas

    On crossexamination, Syed testified that Gloria hadfiled bigamy cases against him in 2001 and 2002, and thathe had gone to the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona,Cavite to get certification on whether or not there was amarriage license on advice of his counsel.8

    Petitioner also