GR NO.

183896, JANUARY 30, 2013

ABBAS VS ABBAS

Facts: This is a case filed by Syed Azhar Abbas, petitioner, for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Gloria
Goo-Abbas on the ground of absence of marriage license, as provided for in Article 4 of the Family Code.

Syed and Gloria were married in Taiwan on August 9, 1992. When they arrived in the Philippines on December 1992,
a ceremony was conducted between them solemnized by Rev. Mario Dauz and witnessed by Atty. Lorenzo Sanchez
and Mary Ann Ceriola. Present also is Felicitas Goo, mother-in-law of Syed. During the ceremony, he and Gloria signed
a document. Syed claim that he did not know the nature of the ceremony until Gloria told him that it was a marriage.

In the marriage contract of Syed and Gloria, it is stated that Marriage License No 9969967, issued at Carmona, Cavite
was proven by the MCR being issued to other couple.

Issue: Whether or not the marriage of Syed and Gloria is valid.

Ruling: No. As the marriage of Syed and Gloria was solemnized on January 9, 1993, the Family Code is the
applicable law, particularly Articles 3, 4 and 35 (3).

Article 3 provides the formal requisites of marriage. Article 4 provides the effects of the absence of the essential and
formal requisites. And Article 35, Paragraph 3 provides that those marriages which are solemnized without a license
are void from the beginning in exception to those covered by the preceding chapter.

Gloria failed to present actual marriage license or copy relied on the marriage contract and testimonies to prove the
existence of the said license.

Thus, the marriage of Syed and Gloria is void ab initio.

BANGAYAN VS BANGAYAN

GR NO. 201061, JULY 3, 2013

In September 1979, Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. married Azucena Alegre. In 1982, while Alegre was outside the
Philippines, Benjamin developed a romantic relationship with Sally Go. Sally’s father was against this. In order to
appease her father, Sally convinced Benjamin to sign a purported marriage contract in March 1982.

In 1994, the relationship between Sally and Benjamin soured. Sally filed a bigamy case against Benjamin. Benjamin
on the other hand filed an action to declare his alleged marriage to Sally as non-existent. To prove the existence of
their marriage, Sally presented a marriage license allegedly issued to Benjamin.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between Sally and Benjamin is bigamous.

HELD: No. The elements of bigamy are:

1. That the offender has been legally married.

2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could
not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code.

3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage.

4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

In this case, the fourth element is not present. The marriage license presented by Sally was not authentic as in fact,
no marriage license was ever issued to both parties in view of the alleged marriage. The marriage between them was
merely in jest and never complied with the essential requisites of marriage. Hence, there is no bigamous marriage to
speak of.