Title
Sy vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 127263
Decision Date
Apr 12, 2000
Marriage declared void ab initio due to lack of marriage license at ceremony; psychological incapacity claim moot. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127263)

Chronology of Events and Legal Proceedings

Following Fernando's abandonment of their conjugal dwelling in 1983, Filipina initially filed for legal separation in 1987, which was later amended to a petition for separation of property based on Fernando’s abandonment and a Memorandum of Agreement executed by the spouses. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, Pampanga, dissolved their conjugal partnership and awarded custody of the children to Filipina. In 1988, Filipina filed a criminal case against Fernando for attempted parricide based on physical abuse during a visit to their son, resulting in Fernando's conviction for slight physical injuries.

Subsequently, Filipina filed a new legal separation petition on grounds of repeated physical violence, sexual infidelity, attempted parricide, and abandonment. The RTC granted this and awarded custody of their daughter to Filipina and their son to Fernando. In 1992, Filipina filed a petition to declare the marriage absolutely null due to Fernando's alleged psychological incapacity.

Issues Raised and Trial Court Findings

The RTC denied the petition for annulment, holding that the acts cited by Filipina did not establish psychological incapacity to warrant nullification. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, concluding that the evidence did not meet the strict standard required to nullify a marriage and found that the respondent’s psychological incapacity did not exist at the time of marriage in 1973, noting the couple’s harmonious relationship before separation in 1983.

Petitioner's New Arguments and Legal Questions on Appeal

On appeal to the Supreme Court, Filipina raised, for the first time, the issue that their marriage was void ab initio due to lack of a valid marriage license at the time of their wedding ceremony. She questioned the incongruity between the date of the marriage license issuance (September 17, 1974) and the actual marriage ceremony (November 15, 1973). Additional issues contested included the correctness of the CA’s findings on psychological incapacity, the existence of redeeming attitudes by Fernando toward his children, and the applicability of the Supreme Court ruling in Santos v. Court of Appeals.

Legal Analysis on the Absence of Marriage License

Although ordinarily issues not raised in the trial court cannot be entertained on appeal, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to address the validity of the marriage in the interest of substantial justice. Evidence admitted during trial, including the marriage certificate, marriage license, and birth certificates of the children, undisputedly showed a discrepancy: the marriage license was issued almost a year after the wedding date. Both parties admitted these dates. The marriage license was issued in Carmona, Cavite—an unusual circumstance since neither party resided there.

Under Article 80(3) of the Civil Code, a marriage solemnized without a marriage license is void from the beginning, except in cases of exceptional character, none of which applied here

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.