Go-Bangayan vs. Bangayan, Jr.

A marriage solemnized without a license and which is absolutely simulated or fictitious is both void ab initio under Article 35(3) of the Family Code and inexistent under Article 1409(2) of the Civil Code, and where parties cohabit without benefit of valid marriage, their property relations are governed by Article 148 of the Family Code, recognizing co-ownership only over properties acquired through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry, notwithstanding registration of titles in the names of the parties as spouses.

Benjamin Bangayan Jr. was validly married to Azucena Alegre on 10 September 1973 in Caloocan City. In 1979, he developed a romantic relationship with Sally Go, a customer in his family's auto parts business. After Azucena left for the United States in December 1981, Benjamin and Sally began cohabiting as husband and wife in February 1982. To appease Sally's father, who opposed the relationship, the parties executed a purported marriage contract on 7 March 1982 in Santolan, Pasig City, despite Benjamin's subsisting marriage and the absence of a marriage license. Sally assured Benjamin the contract would not be registered. During their cohabitation until 1994, they acquired numerous real properties, some registered in their names as spouses, others individually. The relationship ended in 1994 when Sally relocated to Canada with their two children, Bernice and Bentley. Sally subsequently filed criminal actions for bigamy and falsification of public documents against Benjamin, utilizing the simulated marriage contract as evidence.

• The Prior Valid Marriage: Benjamin Bangayan Jr. married Azucena Alegre on 10 September 1973 in Caloocan City; the marriage produced three children and remained valid and subsisting with no evidence of annulment or dissolution.
• The Cohabitation and Simulated Marriage: Benjamin developed a relationship with Sally Go in 1979. Following Azucena's departure for the United States in December 1981, Benjamin and Sally began living together as husband and wife in February 1982. To appease Sally's father who opposed the relationship, they executed a purported marriage contract on 7 March 1982 in Santolan, Pasig City. Sally, aware of Benjamin's marital status, assured him the contract would not be registered. The trial court found this marriage was "made only in jest" and simulated to cover Sally from expected social humiliation.
• Properties Acquired: During their cohabitation from 1982 to 1994, the parties acquired numerous real properties. Seven properties were specifically contested: (1) TCT No. 61722 registered in the names of Benjamin and Sally as spouses; (2) TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860 registered in Benjamin's name with the descriptive phrase "married to Sally"; (3) CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783 registered in Sally's name with the descriptive phrase "married to Benjamin"; and (4) TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681 registered in Sally's name as a single individual. Additionally, Sally claimed 37 other properties which Benjamin asserted were advance inheritance from his father to him and his siblings.
• Sally's Admissions: In her Answer before the trial court, Sally admitted that "Benjamin's late father himself conveyed a number of properties to his children and their respective spouses which included Sally," supporting Benjamin's claim that the 37 properties were advance inheritance rather than conjugal assets.
• Separation and Criminal Charges: The relationship ended in 1994 when Sally left for Canada with their two children, Bernice and Bentley. Sally subsequently filed criminal actions for bigamy and falsification of public documents against Benjamin, utilizing the simulated marriage contract as evidence.
• Trial Proceedings: After Benjamin presented his evidence, Sally filed a demurrer to evidence which was denied. She then refused to present her evidence despite six resettings scheduled at her instance on 28 February 2008, 10 July 2008, 4 September 2008, 11 September 2008, 2 October 2008, 23 October 2008, and 28 November 2008. Despite the trial court's warning that failure to present evidence on 28 November 2008 would result in submission of the case for decision, Sally insisted on presenting Benjamin (who was not subpoenaed and was absent) rather than her available witnesses, prompting the trial court to deem the case submitted for decision.
• Evidence of Non-Issuance of Marriage License: During trial, Teresita Oliveros, Registration Officer II of the Pasig Local Civil Registrar, testified that Marriage License No. N-07568 referenced in the purported marriage contract did not match the series of licenses issued for February 1982 (which were numbered 6648100 to 6648150). Certifications from the Local Civil Registrar, National Statistics Office, and Records Management and Archives Office confirmed that no marriage license was issued to the parties and no record of their marriage existed.

• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: Sally maintained that the trial court abandoned its duty to protect marriage as an inviolable institution by preventing her from presenting evidence to prove her marriage to Benjamin, alleging that the court's refusal to grant further postponements constituted a denial of due process.
• Validity of the Marriage: Sally argued that the trial court and Court of Appeals inconsistently declared the marriage both non-existent and null and void ab initio, asserting that these are mutually exclusive characterizations. She contended that had she been allowed to present evidence, she would have proven a valid marriage through Benjamin's registration of properties listing her as his wife, his acknowledgment of paternity in their children's birth certificates, and his introduction of her as his wife to family and friends. She further implied that Benjamin's marriage to Azucena was questionable because no properties were registered in their names and he was not the informant in their children's birth certificates.
• Property Relations: Sally claimed entitlement to the 37 properties as conjugal assets, asserting they were acquired during their cohabitation and registered with her name or the designation "married to Sally."
• Inhibition of the Trial Judge: Sally argued that Judge Roy G. Gironella exhibited bias and partiality against her, citing his refusal to accommodate her presentation of evidence and his use of uncomplimentary language in the decision labeling her as an opportunist.

• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: Benjamin countered that Sally's repeated requests for postponement and her ultimate refusal to present available witnesses on the scheduled date, despite prior warning from the court, constituted a deliberate waiver of her right to present evidence and an attempt to delay proceedings pending the Court of Appeals' resolution of her petition for certiorari.
• Validity of the Marriage: Benjamin argued that his marriage to Azucena was valid and subsisting, evidenced by their marriage contract, and that his purported marriage to Sally lacked the essential requisite of a marriage license, rendering it void from the beginning. He maintained that the marriage was absolutely simulated and fictitious, intended merely to cover Sally from social humiliation.
• Property Relations: Benjamin asserted that the 37 properties claimed by Sally were advance inheritance from his father to him and his siblings, not conjugal assets. He argued that under Article 148 of the Family Code, only properties acquired through actual joint contribution were subject to co-ownership, and Sally failed to prove such contribution regarding the properties registered in his name.

• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's ruling that Sally waived her right to present evidence by refusing to proceed despite numerous resettings and prior warning.
• Validity of the Marriage: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the declaration that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was null and void ab initio and non-existent.
• Property Relations: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the trial court's decision regarding the property relations of the parties under Article 148 of the Family Code.

• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: The affirmation was proper. A grant of continuance or postponement is addressed to the trial court's discretion. Sally's evidence presentation was reset six times at her instance, and she was expressly warned that failure to present evidence on the final date would result in submission of the case for decision. Her insistence on presenting only Benjamin (who was absent and unsubpoenaed) despite the presence of other witnesses, coupled with her refusal to proceed, demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting her case and constituted a deliberate delay tactic pending her certiorari petition. Such conduct warranted the trial court's ruling that she waived her right to present evidence.
• Validity of the Marriage: The declaration of nullity and non-existence was correct. The marriage was void ab initio under Article 35(3) of the Family Code for lack of a marriage license, as established by the certification from the Local Civil Registrar that Marriage License No. N-07568 was not issued and did not match the serial numbers issued for February 1982. Simultaneously, the marriage was non-existent under Article 1409(2) of the Civil Code as an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract, executed merely to appease Sally's father and cover her from social humiliation without any intent to create legal relations. There is no inconsistency in declaring a marriage both void ab initio and non-existent; a simulated contract is inexistent and void from the beginning. The marriage was not bigamous because bigamy requires a subsequent marriage with all essential requisites for validity except the existence of a prior marriage; here, the purported marriage lacked a license and was not recorded, thus no valid second marriage existed.
• Property Relations: The modification was proper. Article 148 of the Family Code governs the property relations of parties cohabiting without the benefit of valid marriage, limiting co-ownership to properties acquired through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry. The descriptive phrase "married to" in property titles does not prove co-ownership but merely describes the civil status of the registered owner. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860 (registered in Benjamin's name) were his exclusive properties for lack of proof of Sally's contribution; that TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681 and CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783 (registered in Sally's name) were her exclusive properties for lack of proof of Benjamin's contribution; and that TCT No. 61722 (registered in both names as spouses) was subject to equal co-ownership, with Benjamin's share accruing to his conjugal partnership with Azucena and Sally's share accruing to her, absent proof of her bad faith.

• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence Through Unjustified Delay — A party who repeatedly seeks postponements and ultimately refuses to present available evidence despite prior warning from the court, thereby causing deliberate delay, is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. The grant of continuances is discretionary, and a party cannot complain of deprivation of due process when the refusal to proceed is self-induced.
• Void and Non-Existent Marriages — A marriage solemnized without a license is void ab initio under Article 35(3) of the Family Code. Additionally, an absolutely simulated or fictitious marriage—where parties execute a marriage contract without intent to create legal relations and merely to deceive third parties—is inexistent and void from the beginning under Article 1409(2) of the Civil Code. A marriage may be simultaneously characterized as void ab initio and non-existent without contradiction.
• Elements of Bigamy — For bigamy to exist, the second or subsequent marriage must possess all the essential requisites for validity except for the existence of a prior marriage. Where the subsequent marriage lacks a fundamental requisite such as a marriage license, no valid second marriage exists, and the crime of bigamy is not committed (though liability for contracting marriage against legal provisions under Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code may attach).
• Property Relations of Cohabiting Parties Under Article 148 of the Family Code — Parties cohabiting without the benefit of valid marriage are entitled to co-ownership only of properties acquired through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry. In the absence of proof to the contrary, contributions and shares are presumed equal. The registration of property in the names of parties with the descriptive phrase "married to" does not create co-ownership or overcome the requirement to prove actual contribution; such words merely describe the civil status of the registered owner.
• Voluntary Inhibition of Judges — The issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and discretion for the judge. To justify inhibition, there must be extrinsic evidence establishing bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error. Uncomplimentary language in a decision, standing alone, is insufficient to prove prejudice or bad faith warranting inhibition.

• "It is well-settled 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." — Establishing the discretionary nature of trial continuances and the basis for finding waiver through repeated delay.
• "Clearly, if indeed Benjamin and Sally entered into a marriage contract, the marriage was void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license." — Articulating the ratio decidendi regarding the invalidity of the purported marriage.
• "We see no inconsistency in finding the marriage between Benjamin and Sally null and void ab initio and, at the same time, non-existent. Under Article 35 of the Family Code, a marriage solemnized without a license... 'shall be void from the beginning.'... Applying the general rules on void or inexistent contracts under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, contracts which are absolutely simulated or fictitious are 'inexistent and void from the beginning.'" — Clarifying the simultaneous application of void and inexistent contract doctrines to simulated marriages.
• "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." — Stating the elements of bigamy and explaining why the charge was inapplicable.
• "Without proof of actual contribution from either or both spouses, there can be no co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code." — Emphasizing the evidentiary requirement for co-ownership between cohabiting parties.

• Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño, 403 Phil. 861 (2001) — Cited for the rule that a certification from the local civil registrar regarding non-issuance of a marriage license enjoys probative value and is adequate to prove such non-issuance.
• Nollora, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 191425, 7 September 2011, 657 SCRA 330 — Applied for the proposition that bigamy requires a subsequent marriage with all essential requisites for validity except the existence of a prior marriage.
• Acre v. Yuttikki, 560 Phil. 495 (2007) — Followed for the rule that the words "married to" preceding the name of a spouse in property titles are merely descriptive of the registered owner's civil status and do not prove co-ownership.
• Bautista v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157219, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 353 — Cited regarding the discretionary nature of motions for continuance or postponement.

• Article 35(3), Family Code — Provides that marriages solemnized without a license, except those covered by Article 34, shall be void from the beginning; applied to declare the purported marriage void ab initio for lack of marriage license.
• Article 1409(2), Civil Code — Declares that contracts which are absolutely simulated or fictitious are inexistent and void from the beginning; applied to characterize the simulated marriage contract as non-existent.
• Article 148, Family Code — Governs property relations of parties cohabiting without valid marriage, limiting co-ownership to properties acquired through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry; applied to determine the respective shares of the parties in the contested properties.
• Article 349, Revised Penal Code (Bigamy) — Discussed to distinguish the instant case where no valid second marriage existed due to lack of license, thus negating the crime of bigamy.
• Article 350, Revised Penal Code (Marriage contracted against legal provisions) — Referenced as the possible applicable provision for contracting a marriage knowing it lacks legal requisites, as distinguished from bigamy.

Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez