FILIPINA Y.
SY, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, BRANCH
XLI, and FERNANDO SY, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy contracted marriage on November 15, 1973 at the
Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in Quezon City. Their union was blessed with two children, Frederick and Farrah
Sheryll who were born on July 8, 1975 and February 14, 1978, respectively
On September 15, 1983, Fernando left their conjugal dwelling. Since then, the spouses lived separately, and their
two children were in the custody of their mother. However, their son Frederick transferred to his father's residence
at Masangkay, Tondo, Manila on May 15, 1988, and from then on, lived with his father.
On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition for legal separation. Later, upon motion of petitioner, the action was
later amended to a petition for separation of property on the grounds that her husband abandoned her without
just cause; that they have been living separately for more than one year; and that they voluntarily entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement dated September 29, 1983, containing the rules that would govern the dissolution of
their conjugal partnership.
In May 1988, Filipina filed a criminal action for attempted parricide against her husband.
Filipina testified that in the afternoon of May 15, 1988, she went to the dental clinic at Masangkay, Tondo, Manila,
owned by her husband but operated by his mistress, to fetch her son and bring him to San Fernando, Pampanga.
While she was talking to her son, the boy ignored her and continued playing with the family computer. Filipina got
mad, took the computer away from her son, and started spanking him. At that instance, Fernando pulled Filipina
away from their son, and punched her in the different parts of her body. Filipina also claimed that her husband
started choking her when she fell on the floor, and released her only when he thought she was dead. Filipina
suffered from hematoma and contusions on different parts of her body as a result of the blows inflicted by her
husband, evidenced by a Medical Certificate issued by a certain Dr. James Ferraren. She said it was not the first
time Fernando maltreated her.
The Regional Trial Court of Manila, however, in its decision 12 dated April 26, 1990, convicted Fernando only of the
lesser crime of slight physical injuries, and sentenced him to 20 days imprisonment
Petitioner later filed a new action for legal separation against private respondenton the following grounds: (1)
repeated physical violence; (2) sexual infidelity; (3) attempt by respondent against her life; and (4) abandonment of
her by her husband without justifiable cause for more than one year.
The Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, in its decision 13 dated December 4, 1991, granted the petition
on the grounds of repeated physical violence and sexual infidelity, and issued a decree of legal separation. It
awarded custody of their daughter Farrah Sheryll to petitioner, and their son Frederick to respondent.
On August 4, 1992, Filipina filed a petition 14 for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando on
the ground of psychological incapacity. her petitions for separation of property and legal separation, and Fernando's
infliction of physical violence on her which led to the conviction of her husband for slight physical injuries are
symptoms of psychological incapacity.
She also cites as manifestations of her husband's psychological incapacity the following: (1) habitual alcoholism; (2)
refusal to live with her without fault on her part, choosing to live with his mistress instead; and (3) refusal to have
sex with her, performing the marital act only to satisfy himself. Moreover, Filipina alleges that such psychological
incapacity of her husband existed from the time of the celebration of their marriage and became manifest thereafter.
RTC denied the petition. alleged acts of the respondent, as cited by petitioner, do not constitute psychological
incapacity which may warrant the declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage.
CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
the testimony of petitioner concerning respondent's purported psychological incapacity falls short of the quantum
of evidence required to nullify a marriage celebrated with all the formal and essential requisites of law. Moreover,
the Court of Appeals held that petitioner failed to show that the alleged psychological incapacity of respondent had
existed at the time of the celebration of their marriage in 1973. It reiterated the finding of the trial court that the
couple's marital problems surfaced only in 1983, or almost ten years from the date of the celebration of their
marriage. And prior to their separation in 1983, they were living together harmoniously.
Thus the petition.
ISSSUE:
1. Whether or not the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is void from the beginning for lack of a marriage
license at the time of the ceremony; and
2. Whether or not private respondent is psychologically incapacitated at the time of said marriage celebration to warrant a
declaration of its absolute nullity.
RULING:
The marriage is void ab initio for lack of a marriage license at the time of celebration.
the case at bar requires that we address the issue of the validity of the marriage between Filipina and Fernando
which petitioner claims is void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license, in order to arrive at a just
resolution of a deeply seated and violent conflict between the parties.
Petitioner states that though she did not categorically state in her petition for annulment of marriage before
the trial court that the incongruity in the dates of the marriage license and the celebration of the marriage itself
would lead to the conclusion that her marriage to Fernando was void from the beginning, she points out that
these critical dates were contained in the documents she submitted before the court. The date of issue of the
marriage license and marriage certificate, September 17, 1974, is contained in their marriage contract
The date of celebration of their marriage at Our Lady of Lourdes, Sta. Teresita Parish, on November 15, 1973,
is admitted both by petitioner and private respondent.
November 15, 1973, also appears as the date of marriage of the parents in both their son's and daughter's birth
certificates,
These pieces of evidence on record plainly and indubitably show that on the day of the marriage ceremony,
there was no marriage license. A marriage license is a formal requirement; its absence renders the
marriage void ab initio. In addition, the marriage contract shows that the marriage license, numbered 6237519,
was issued in Carmona, Cavite, yet, neither petitioner nor private respondent ever resided in Carmona
We thus conclude that under Article 80 of the Civil Code, the marriage between petitioner and private
respondent is void from the beginning.
The remaining issue on the psychological incapacity of private respondent need no longer detain us. It is
mooted by our conclusion that the marriage of petitioner to respondent is void ab initio for lack of a marriage
license at the time their marriage was solemnized.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
