Abbas v.

Abbas
GR. No. 183896, January 30, 2013
Petitioner: Syed Abbas
Respondent: Gloria Goo Abbas
Case: This is a petition for review of CAs decision reversing the RTCs ruling
and in denying petitioners MR of the CA decision.

CA: On appeal, CA granted Glorias appeal. It held that the certification of the
civil registrar failed to categorically state that a diligent search for the license
was conducted and that because of this, it cannot be accorded probative value.
CA ruled that the parties had been validly married and all the marriage requisites
were complied with.
Syed raised to SC.

Facts: Syed Abbas filed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Gloria
due to the absence of a marriage license. The marriage contract states that
marriage license 9969967 was presented to the solemnizing officer. Syed
testified before the RTC that he is a Pakistani citizen and he met Gloria in
Taiwan in 1991 and got married a year later. When he arrived in the PH, he
visited his mother-in-laws residence in Manila. His mother-in-law and two men
came and asked him to undergo a ceremony of which the nature was not
disclosed to him. During the ceremony, he and Gloria were asked to sign a
document. He claimed that he did not know it was a marriage ceremony until
after when Gloria told him. Re: the marriage license, he claims that he has never
been to Cavite and that when he went there to verify, the Civil Registrar issued a
certification that marriage license 9969967 was for another couple. Also, Gloria
had instituted bigamy cases against him. In her defense, Gloria presented the
solemnizing authority of Rev. Dauz. Dauz testified that he is authorized to
officiate the marriage ceremony and that he is familiar with the requirements.
Atty. Sanchez gave him the marriage license a day before the marriage
ceremony. Atty. Sanchez then testified that he was asked to be the sponsor and
that he requested a Qualin to secure the license after the mother and bride asked
him to help. He claims not to know where the license was obtained. Lastly,
Felicitas Goo, Glorias mother, testified that she was present at the wedding and
that a man had helped in securing the application of the marriage license. Finally,
Gloria confirmed that she filed a bigamy case against Syed for contracting a
marriage with Corazon Buenaventura while theirs was still subsisting
RTC: court held that no valid marriage license was issued in favour of Gloria
and Syed as the license number indicated in their marriage contract is actually
for another couple. As the marriage is not one of those exempt from the license
requirement, and the lack of it is absence of a formal requisite, the marriage is
void ab initio. Gloria filed an MR but it was denied.

Issue: W/N valid marriage license was issued to the couple?

Held: NO.
Ratio: A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage
voidable as provided in Art. 45 of FC. An irregularity in the formal requisites
shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible
for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally, and administratively liable. The
RTC was correct in ruling that the marriage is void because a marriage license
was not issued in favour of the parties. Gloria failed to present the original
license, or at the very least, a copy of it. The certification falls within the ambit
of Sec. 29 Rule 132 of the ROC which authorizes the registrar to certify that
despite diligent search, a particular document does not exist in their record. SC
holds that the certification issued by the civil registrar enjoyed probative value
CA erred in focusing on the absence of the words despite diligent search and
that the registrar did not comply with the above mentioned provision. To justify
its ruling, it cited Republic v. CA in which the court relied in the certification
presented which stated that a license could not be found. Under Sec. 3 (m), Rule
131, it is a disputable presumption that an official duty has been regularly
performed, absent contradiction or other evidence. The presumption of regularity
of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure
to perform a duty. No such positive evidence was presented.
Gloria failed to even explain why the license was issued in Carmona, a location
in which neither spouse resided. She could have presented Qualin as a witness to
overturn the certification but she did not.