GR. No.
201061 July 3, 2013
Sally Go-Bangayan, Petitioner
Benjamin Bangayan Jr, Respondent
Facts:
Om March 15, 2004 Benjamin Bangayan Jr. filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent
marriage and or declaration of nullity of marriage. He alleged that on September 10, 1973, he
married Azucena Alegre with 3 children namely Rizalyn, Emmamylin & Benjanmin III.
In 1979, Benjamin developed a romantic relationship with sally Go-Bangayan. In February
1892, Benjamin and sally lived together as husband and wife. On March 7, 1892, Sally and
Benjamin signed a purported marriage contract. Sally assured Benjamin that the marriage
contract would not be registered.
Benjamin and Sally’s cohabitation produced two children and during the period of their
cohabitation, they acquired the following real properties.
*TCT No. 61722 registered in the names of Benjamin & Sally as spouses.
*TCT No. 61720 and 190860 registered in the name of Benjamin married to sally.
*CCT No. 8782 and 8783 registered in the name of Sally married to Benjamin.
*TCT No. N-193656 & 253681 registered in the name of sally as a single individual.
The relationship of Benjamin and Sally ended in 1994 when she left for Canada along with
Bernice and Bentley.
Sally filed criminal actions for Bigamy & falsification of Public documents against Benjamin
using their simulated contract as evidence. Benjamin filed a petition for declaration of a non-
existent marriage and/or declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that his marriage Sally
was bigamous and that it lacked the formal requisites to a valid marriage.
Benjamin also asked the court for the partition of the properties acquired with Sally in
accordance with the Article 148 of the Family Code. A total of 44 registered properties became
the subject of partition aside from properties enumerated by Benjamin in his petition sally
named 37 properties in her answer.
After Benjamin presented his evidence, Sally filed a demurer to evidence to evidence with the
court denied. She then filed for a petition for the issuance of the temporary restraining order
which was also denied. Sally refused to present pieces of evidence several times prompting the
trial court to consider the case submitted for decision.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the court of Appeals committed a reversible error in a firming the trial court decision
that Sally have waived her right to present evidences;
2. Whether the court Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the trial court’s decision
declaring the marriage between Benjamin and Sally null and void an ignition & nonexistent.
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 & Sally.
RULING:
1. Sally’s continued failure to present her evidence despite the opportunities given by the trial
court showed her lack of interest to proceed with the case. Sally could not accuse the trial
court of failing to protect marriage as an inviolable institution because the trial court also
has the duty to ensure that trial proceeds despite the deliberate delay and refusal to proceed
by one of the parties.
2. Benjamin’s marriage to Azucena on 10 September 1973 was duly established before the
trial court, evidenced by a certified true copy of their marriage contract. At the time
Benjamin and Sally entered into a purported marriage on 7 March 1982, the marriage
between Benjamin and Azucena was valid and subsisting. The certification from the local
civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license and absent any
suspicious circumstance, the certification enjoys probative value, being issued by the
officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a
marriage license. It was also established before the trial court that the purported marriage
between Benjamin and Sally was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the National
Statistics Office. The certification from the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-
issuance of a marriage license and absent any suspicious circumstance, the certification
enjoys probative value, being issued by the officer charged under the law to keep a record
of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.
3. Only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution
of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their
respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and
corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply
to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit. Both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals correctly excluded the 37 properties being claimed by Sally which were given by
Benjamin’s father to his children as advance inheritance. The words "married to" preceding
the name of a spouse are merely descriptive of the civil status of the registered owner. Such
words do not prove co-ownership. Without proof of actual contribution from either or both
spouses, there can be no co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code.