G.R. No. 201061 ; July 3, 2013
SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, Petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN BANGAYAN, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

On March 15, 2004, respondent Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage and/or declaration of nullity of marriage against petitioner Sally Go-Bangayan. Benjamin alleged he was validly married to Azucena Alegre on September 10, 1973. In 1979, he developed a relationship with Sally, a customer in his family’s business. After Azucena left for the USA in December 1981, Benjamin and Sally began cohabiting in February 1982. To appease her father, Sally brought Benjamin to an office in Pasig on March 7, 1982, where they signed a purported marriage contract. Sally, knowing Benjamin was married, assured him the contract would not be registered. Their cohabitation produced two children, Bernice and Bentley, and they acquired several real properties registered in various ways (e.g., in both names as spouses, in Benjamin’s name “married to Sally,” in Sally’s name “married to Benjamin,” and in Sally’s name as a single individual). The relationship ended in 1994 when Sally left for Canada. Sally later filed criminal actions for bigamy and falsification against Benjamin using the simulated marriage contract. In his petition, Benjamin sought a declaration of nullity on grounds of bigamy and lack of formal requisites, partition of properties under Article 148 of the Family Code, his appointment as administrator, and a declaration that Bernice and Bentley were illegitimate. A total of 44 registered properties were subject to partition. After Benjamin presented evidence, Sally filed a demurrer to evidence, which was denied. She then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals and refused to present her evidence in the trial court despite multiple opportunities, leading the trial court to consider the case submitted for decision.
The trial court ruled in favor of Benjamin. It found, based on a certification from the Pasig Local Civil Registrar, that the marriage license number on the purported contract (N-07568) was not issued to the parties in February 1982. The court declared the marriage null and void ab initio and non-existent due to the absence of a marriage license, not because of bigamy. It denied Sally’s claims to 37 properties she listed, finding they were owned by Benjamin’s parents as advance inheritance to their children, with the phrase “married to Sally Go” being merely descriptive. The court found several other properties were purchased with Benjamin’s money alone, without contribution from Sally, and thus were part of Benjamin’s conjugal partnership with Azucena. Applying Article 148 of the Family Code, the court ruled that Sally, who was in bad faith knowing of the prior marriage, would have her share in two properties (TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681) forfeited in favor of their children Bernice and Bentley, while Benjamin’s share would revert to his conjugal ownership with Azucena. The trial court dismissed Sally’s claims for spousal and child support and declined to rule on the children’s status as they were not parties.

ISSUE

The core legal issue is the validity of the marriage between Benjamin and Sally and the consequent disposition of properties acquired during their cohabitation.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which had affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Court held the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was void ab initio under Article 35(3) of the Family Code for being solemnized without a valid marriage license. The certification from the local civil registrar was conclusive proof that no such license was issued. The Court clarified that the marriage was void due to the absence of a license, not due to bigamy, as a prior subsisting marriage is a separate ground for nullity under Article 35(4). The Court upheld the trial court’s application of Article 148 of the Family Code to govern the property relations between Benjamin and Sally, as they were not legally married but lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Since both parties were in bad faith (Sally knew of the prior marriage, and Benjamin entered a simulated marriage while still married), the property regime was one of co-ownership, limited only to properties acquired by their joint efforts. Properties acquired using Benjamin’s funds alone, without Sally’s contribution, were not part of this co-ownership. The Court affirmed the forfeiture of Sally’s share in the two co-owned properties in favor of their children, as an equitable solution under Article 148, while Benjamin’s share reverted to his conjugal partnership with Azucena. The Court also upheld the denial of Sally’s claims to the 37 other properties and the dismissal of her support claims.