Facts:

In 1973, Filipina and Fernando contracted marriage. Two children were born out of the marriage. In 1983, Fernando left their conjugal dwelling.

In 1992, Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity. She points out that the final judgment rendered by the RTC in her favor, in 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.

The RTC denied the petition of Filipina for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando stating that the alleged acts of the Fernando do not constitute psychological incapacity. The CA affirmed the decision. 

Filipina appealed to the SC and for the first time, raised the issue of the marriage being void for lack of a valid marriage license at the time of its celebration. She 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. According to her, 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 on November 15, 1973 is admitted both by both parties. November 15, 1973, also appears as the date of marriage of the parents in both their son's and daughter's birth certificates. 


Issue: 

Whether or not the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is void from the beginning for lack of marriage license at the time of the ceremony


Held:

Although we have repeatedly ruled that litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal, as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice, in a number of instances, we have relaxed observance of procedural rules, noting that technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist to protect and promote substantive rights of litigants. We said that certain rules ought not to be applied with severity and rigidity if by so doing, the very reason for their existence would be defeated. Hence, when substantial justice plainly requires, exempting a particular case from the operation of technicalities should not be subject to cavil. In our view, 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. 

From the documents she presented, the marriage license was issued on September 17, 1974, almost one year after the ceremony took place on November 15, 1973. The ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license. Fernando did not deny these dates on record. Under Article 80 of the Civil Code, the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is void from the beginning.

We note that their marriage certificate and marriage license are only photocopies. So are the birth certificates of their son Frederick and daughter Farrah Sheryll. Nevertheless, these documents were marked as Exhibits during the course of the trial below, which shows that these have been examined and admitted by the trial court, with no objections having been made as to their authenticity and due execution. Likewise, no objection was interposed to petitioner's testimony in open court when she affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their marriage was on November 15, 1973. We are of the view, therefore, that having been admitted in evidence, with the adverse party failing to timely object thereto, these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained therein. 

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. (Filipina Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000)