Marriage License Filipina Y Sy v CA Facts Filipina Sy and Fernando Sy got

Marriage license filipina y sy v ca facts filipina sy

This preview shows page 15 - 17 out of 51 pages.

Marriage License Filipina Y. Sy v. CA Facts: Filipina Sy and Fernando Sy got married on 1973. They were blessed with 2 children. Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The RTC denied the petition, which was later on affirmed by the CA. MR was denied as well. Hence, this appeal by certiorari. Petitioner, for the first time, is raising the issue that there is an absence of a marriage license at the time of the ceremony. The date of issue of the marriage license and marriage certificate is September 14, 1974 , while the date of the celebration of the marriage is on November 15, 1973 . Issue: Whether or not the marriage between the parties is void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license at the time of the ceremony Held: Yes. The marriage license was issued almost one year after the ceremony took place. Therefore, the marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license. Article 80 of the Civil Code is applicable in this case. There being no claim of an exceptional character, he purported marriage between petitioner and private respondent could not be classified among those enumerated in Article 72-79 of the Civil Code. Under Article 80 of the Civil Code, the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is VOID from the beginning. Page 15 of 51
Image of page 15
CIVREV DIGESTS – MIDTERMS (DEAN DEL CASTILLO) The issue on psychological incapacity is mooted by the conclusion that the marriage is void ab initio for lack of a marriage license at the time the marriage was solemnized. REINEL ANTHONY B. DE CASTRO, Petitioner, vs. ANNABELLE ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO, Respondent. Petitioner and respondent met and became sweethearts in 1991. They planned to get married, thus they applied for a marriage license with the Office of the Civil Registrar of Pasig City in September 1994. They had their first sexual relation sometime in October 1994, and had regularly engaged in sex thereafter. When the couple went back to the Office of the Civil Registrar, the marriage license had already expired. Thus, in order to push through with the plan, in lieu of a marriage license, they executed an affidavit dated 13 March 1995 stating that they had been living together as husband and wife for at least five years. The couple got married on the same date, with Judge Jose C. Bernabe, presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, administering the civil rites. Nevertheless, after the ceremony, petitioner and respondent went back to their respective homes and did not live together as husband and wife. Respondent filed a complaint for support against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court. In her complaint, respondent alleged that she is married to petitioner and that the latter has failed on his responsibility/obligation to financially support her as his wife and Reinna Tricia as his child.
Image of page 16
Image of page 17

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 51 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, DEAN DEL CASTILLO

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture