Third Division: 31/cpulllic of TBC S Uprcmc !court
Third Division: 31/cpulllic of TBC S Uprcmc !court
RAQUEL G. KHO,
Petitioner,
Present:
- versus -
Promulgated:
June ?1, 2016
x--------------------------------------------------------------~~~-x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Challenged in the present petition for review on certiorari are the
Decision 1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City dated
March 30, 2006 and January 14, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No.
69218. The assailed CA Decision reversed and set aside the Decision 3 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, in
Civil Case No. 464, which ruled in petitioner's favor in an action he filed for
declaration of nullity of his marriage with private respondent, while the CA
Resolution denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated May 23,
2016.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Arsenio J. Magapale and Vicente L. Yap, concurring; Annex "A" to Petition, rollo, pp. 28-40.
2
Penned by Associate Justice francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier
and Rodi! V. Zalameda, concurring; Annex "B" to Petition, id. at 41-43.
J
Annex "C" to Petition, id. at 44-59.
t#
Decision
Decision
tfl
Decision
ct'
Id. at 39.
Id. at 72.
Decision
4.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE OR REVERSING THE LOWER COURT'S
JUDGMENT
DECLARING
THE
MARRIAGE
BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT A NULLITY FOR ABSENCE OF
0
THE REQUISITE MARRIAGE LICENSE. '
10
/d.atl5.
t?1
._,
Decision
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and
(I 0) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on rccord. 11
In the present case, the findings of the RTC and the CA, on whether or
not there was indeed a marriage license obtained by petitioner and
respondent, are conflicting. 1-Ience, it is but proper for this Court to review
these findings.
The marriage of petitioner and respondent was celebrated on June 1,
1972, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. 12 Hence, the Civil Code
governs their union. Accordingly, Article 53 of the Civil Code spells out the
essential requisites of marriage as a contract, to wit:
ART. 53. No marriage slwll be sole11111ized unless all tltese
requisites are complied witlt:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties;
(2) Their consent, freely given;
(3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and
(4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional
charactcr. 13
Geronimo v. Court al Appeals, GR. No. I 05540, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 494, 498-499_
(Emphasis supplied)
12
The Family Code of the Philippines took effect on August 3, 1988.
u
Emphasis supplied.
11
'
Art. 75. Marriages between Filipino citizens abroad may be solemnized by consuls and vice-consuls of the Republic of the Philippines. The duties of the local civil registrar and of a judge or justice or
the peace or mayor with regard to the celebration of marriage shall be performed by such consuls and vice-consuls.
(/
Decision
"
nothing more than the legitimate consequence flowing from the fact that the
license is the essence of the marriage contract. 15 The rationale for the
compulsory character of a marriage license under the Civil Code is that it is
the authority granted by the State to the contracting parties, after the proper
government official has inquired into their capacity to contract marriage. 16
Stated differently, the requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the
State's demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage,
in the maintenance of which the general public is interested. 17
In the instant case, respondent claims that she and petitioner were able
to secure a marriage license which they presented to the solemnizing officer
before the marriage was performed.
The OSG, on its part, contends that the presumption is always in favor
of the validity of marriage and that any doubt should be resolved to sustain
such validity. Indeed, this Court is mindful of this principle as well as of the
Constitutional policy which protects and strengthens the family as the basic
autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.
On the other hand, petitioner insists that the Certification issued by the
Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar, coupled with the testimony of the
former Civil Registrar, is sufficient evidence to prove the absence of the
subject marriage license.
The Court agrees with petitioner and finds no doubt to be resolved as
the evidence is clearly in his favor.
Apropos is the case of Nicdao Carino v. Yee Carino. 18 There, it was
held that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar, that their office had no
record of a marriage license, was adequate to prove the non-issuance of said
19
license. It was further held that the presumed validity of the marriage of the
parties had been overcome, and that it became the burden of the party
alleging a valid marriage to prove that the marriage was valid, and that the
required marriage license had been secured. 20
As stated above, petitioner was able to present a Certification issued
by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar attesting that the
Office of the Local Civil Registrar "has no record nor copy of any marriage
15
16
17
IH
19
20
..
Decision
21
22
2J
21
Decision
I;
its records of a marriage license, must categorically state that the document
does not exist in the said office despite diligent search.
However, in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 25 this
Court considered the certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar as a
certification of due search and inability to find the record or entry sought by
the parties despite the absence of a categorical statement that "such
document does not exist in their records despite diligent search." The Court,
26
citing Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, held that the certification
of due search and inability to find a record or entry as to the purported
marriage license, issued by the civil registrar, enjoys probative value, he
being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative
to the issuance of a marriage license. Based on said certification, the Court
held that there is absence of a marriage license that would render the
marriage void ab initio.
Moreover, as discussed in the abovestated case of Nicdao Carino v.
Yee Carifio, 27 this Court considered the marriage of the petitioner and her
deceased husband as void ab initio as the records reveal that the marriage
contract of petitioner and the deceased bears no marriage license number
and, as certified by the local civil registrar, their office has no record of such
marriage license. The court held that the certification issued by the local
civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the marriage license.
Their marriage having been solemnized without the necessary marriage
license and not being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license
requirement, the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased is undoubtedly
void ab initio. This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Go2&
Bangayan v. Bangayan, Jr.
Furthermore, in the fairly recent case of Abbas v. Abbas, 29 this Court
echoed the ruling in Republic v. CA 30 that, in sustaining the finding of the
lower court that a marriage license was lacking, this Court relied on the
Certification issued by the local civil registrar, which stated that the alleged
marriage license could not be located as the same did not appear in their
records. Contrary to petitioner's asseveration, nowhere in the Certification
was it categorically stated that the officer involved conducted a diligent
search. In this respect, this Court held that Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules
25
(;/
..
Decision
10
3I
31
)}
ti
11 '
Decision
"
WE CONCUR:
'\
On leave
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
.J
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Comi's Division.
Decision
12
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
,.,,,,.:;r~'~nn
~~!4'..~~:_;;~_'~,~-}
,, ..... ' , .. ,
r'-f'l.
~ L'<,~;_, l;'.__,Ji_
'
.,,_,
~~
~.~ri\r~'"
lo
~_,a
vV'<J
JUN 1 6 2016