View full case

SALLY GO-BANGAYAN v. BENJAMIN BANGAYAN

FACTS:

Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage and/or declaration of nullity of marriage, claiming that he married Azucena Alegre in 1973 and had children with her. He alleged that in 1982, he signed a marriage contract with Sally Go-Bangayan despite still being married to Azucena. Benjamin and Sally lived together as husband and wife and acquired several properties during their relationship. Sally later left for Canada and filed criminal actions against Benjamin for bigamy and falsification of public documents. In response, Benjamin filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage and/or declaration of nullity of marriage, as well as partition of properties acquired with Sally. The trial court ruled in favor of Benjamin, declaring the second marriage void and stating that the properties claimed by Sally were owned by Benjamin's parents and not conjugal properties. Sally appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals.

Benjamin and Sally got married on July 8, 1979, and had four children. Benjamin acquired several properties, but the Court of Appeals ruled that some of these properties were exclusively owned by Sally due to the absence of proof of Benjamin's actual contribution to their purchase. There was also a property jointly owned by Benjamin and Sally, with their shares accruing differently. Benjamin's share would accrue to his existing marriage with Azucena, while Sally's share would accrue to her unless she could provide clear and convincing proof of bad faith. The Court of Appeals also found no evidence of bias and prejudice on the part of the trial judge that would justify his inhibition from the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the trial court's ruling that Sally had waived her right to present evidence.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the trial court's decision declaring the marriage between Benjamin and Sally null and void ab initio and non-existent.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming with modification the trial court's decision regarding the property relations of Benjamin and Sally.

  4. Whether the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was valid and subsisting.

  5. Whether the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was void from the beginning due to the lack of a marriage license.

  6. Whether the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was non-existent and fictitious.

  7. Whether the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was bigamous.

  8. Whether or not the marriage between Benjamin and Sally is bigamous due to the existence of a prior valid marriage.

  9. Whether or not the property relations between Benjamin and Sally should be governed by Article 148 of the Family Code.

  10. Whether or not Judge Gironella should have inhibited himself from hearing the case due to alleged bias.

RULING:

  1. The petition has no merit.

  2. Regarding the waiver of right to present evidence, the Court held that a grant of a motion for continuance or postponement is not a matter of right but is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. In this case, Sally had multiple opportunities to present her evidence but failed to do so. The trial court warned Sally that the case would be submitted for decision if she failed to present evidence on the scheduled hearing date. Therefore, Sally was deemed to have waived her right to present evidence. The Court also noted that Sally appeared to be delaying the case due to her awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeals on her petition, despite no temporary restraining order being issued. Sally's lack of interest and refusal to proceed with the case justified the trial court's decision.

  3. As for the validity of the marriage between Benjamin and Sally, the Court stated that a marriage cannot be non-existent and null and void ab initio at the same time. However, Sally did not present her evidence to prove the existence of their marriage. She requested the Court to consider that Benjamin listed her as his wife in acquiring real properties, but this alone was not sufficient evidence. Sally's failure to present her evidence led to the affirmance of the trial court's decision declaring the marriage null and void.

  4. Lastly, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the property relations of Benjamin and Sally. The Court agreed that Benjamin was the exclusive owner of certain properties based on evidence of sole acquisition. The properties under TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681, as well as CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783, were deemed to be the exclusive properties of Sally since there was no proof of Benjamin's contribution to their purchase. The property under TCT No. 61722 was declared to be jointly owned by Benjamin and Sally, with Benjamin's share accruing to the conjugal partnership in his existing marriage and Sally's share accruing to her in the absence of bad faith. The rest of the trial court's decision was affirmed.

  5. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally was not valid and subsisting because at the time they entered into marriage, the marriage between Benjamin and Azucena was still valid and subsisting.

  6. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally was void from the beginning due to the lack of a marriage license. The absence of a marriage license was established through the testimony of the Registration Officer II of the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City.

  7. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally was non-existent and fictitious. The lack of record with the local civil registrar and the National Statistics Office, as certified by their officers, proved that there was no marriage between Benjamin and Sally. The trial court also found that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was made in jest and was a simulated marriage.

  8. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally was not bigamous. The trial court ruled that the marriage was not bigamous because the first marriage between Benjamin and Azucena was assumed to be the valid one, and there was no evidence to prove its invalidity. The lack of a marriage license made the second marriage void due to the provisions of Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code.

  9. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally is not bigamous because there was no marriage license. Even if there was a marriage license, it would still be considered bigamous and invalid because Benjamin was already validly married to Azucena.

  10. The property relations between Benjamin and Sally are governed by Article 148 of the Family Code, which states that only the properties acquired by both parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. Properties given by Benjamin's father to his children as advance inheritance are excluded.

  11. Judge Gironella did not err in refusing to inhibit himself from the case. Sally failed to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose on the part of Judge Gironella. Although uncomplimentary words were used in the decision, they do not prove prejudice or bad faith in deciding the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Grant of a motion for continuance or postponement is not a matter of right but is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.

  • Failure to present evidence despite multiple opportunities may be deemed as a waiver of the right to present evidence.

  • A marriage cannot be non-existent and null and void ab initio at the same time.

  • Real properties acquired solely will be owned exclusively by the acquiring spouse, while properties with no proof of the other spouse's contribution will be owned exclusively by the other spouse. Jointly acquired properties will be shared according to the respective marital property regimes.

  • A marriage solemnized without a license shall be void from the beginning (Article 35 of the Family Code).

  • Contracts which are absolutely simulated or fictitious are inexistent and void from the beginning (Article 1409 of the Civil Code).

  • For bigamy to exist, the second or subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity except for the existence of a prior marriage.

  • The property relations of cohabitating parties are governed by Article 148 of the Family Code.

  • Inhibition of a judge is primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion, and there must be extrinsic evidence to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose to justify the call for inhibition.