Kho Vs RP
Kho Vs RP
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Challenged in the present petition for review on certiorari are the Decision1 and
Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City dated March 30, 2006 and January
14, 2009, respectively, in CA-GR. CV No. 69218. The assailed CA Decision reversed and
set aside the Decision3 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.
The present petition arose from a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by
herein petitioner with the RTC of Oras, Eastern Samar. Pertinent portions of the Petition
allege as follows:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
xxxx
3. Sometime in the afternoon of May 31, 1972, petitioner's parents summoned one
Eusebio Colongon, now deceased, then clerk in the office of the municipal treasurer,
instructing said clerk to arrange and prepare whatever necessary papers were required
for the intended marriage between petitioner and respondent supposedly to take place
at around midnight of June 1, 1972 so as to exclude the public from witnessing the
marriage ceremony;
5. Petitioner has never gone to the office of the Local Civil Registrar to apply for
marriage license and had not seen much less signed any papers or documents in
connection with the procurement of a marriage license;
6. Considering the shortness of period from the time the aforenamed clerk of the
treasurer's office was told to obtain the pertinent papers in the afternoon of May 31,
1972 so required for the purpose of the forthcoming marriage up to the moment the
actual marriage was celebrated before dawn of June 1, 1972, no marriage license
therefore could have been validly issued, thereby rendering the marriage solemnized on
even date null and void for want of the most essential requisite;
7. For all intents and purposes, thus, Petitioner's and Respondent's marriage
aforestated was solemnized sans the required marriage license, hence, null and void
from the beginning and neither was it performed under circumstances exempting the
requirement of such marriage license;
xxxx
1. Declaring the contract of marriage between petitioner and respondent held on June
1, 1972, at Arteche, Eastern Samar, null and void ab initio and of no legal effect;
Respondent filed her Answer6 praying that the petition be outrightly dismissed for lack
of cause of action because there is no evidence to prove petitioner's allegation that
their marriage was celebrated without the requisite marriage license and that, on the
contrary, both petitioner and respondent personally appeared before the local civil
registrar and secured a marriage license which they presented before their marriage
was solemnized.
Upon petitioner's request, the venue of the action was subsequently transferred to the
RTC of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, where the parties submitted their
respective pleadings as well as affidavits of witnesses.
On September 25, 2000, the RTC rendered its Decision granting the petition. The
dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby declares the marriage
contracted between Raquel G. Kho and Veronica Borata on June 1, 1972 null and void
ab initio, pursuant to Article 80 of the Civil Code and Articles 4 and 5 of the Family
Code. The foregoing is without prejudice to the application of Articles 50 and 51 of the
Family Code.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern
Samar for proper registration of this decree of nullity of marriage.
The RTC found that petitioner's evidence sufficiently established the absence of the
requisite marriage license when the marriage between petitioner and respondent was
celebrated. As such, the RTC ruled that based on Articles 53(4), 58 and 80(3) of the
Civil Code of the Philippines, the absence of the said marriage license rendered the
marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void ab initio.
Respondent then filed an appeal with the CA in Cebu City. On March 30, 2006, the CA
promulgated its assailed Decision, disposing thus:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
The CA held that since a marriage was, in fact, solemnized between the contending
parties, there is a presumption that a marriage license was issued for that purpose and
that petitioner failed to overcome such presumption. The CA also ruled that the absence
of any indication in the marriage certificate that a marriage license was issued is a mere
defect in the formal requisites of the law which does not invalidate the parties'
marriage.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,9 but the CA denied it in its Resolution
dated January 14, 2009.
Petitioner's basic contention in the present petition centers on the alleged failure of the
CA to give due credence to petitioner's evidence which established the absence or lack
of marriage license at the time that petitioner and respondent's marriage was
solemnized. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in deciding the case not on the basis of
law and evidence but rather on the ground of what the appellate court calls as ethical
considerations as well as on the perceived motive of petitioner in seeking the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with respondent.
At the outset, the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), raises a
procedural question by arguing that the issues presented by petitioner in the present
petition are factual in nature and it is not proper for this Court to delve into these
issues in a petition for review on certiorari.
The Court does not agree.
The issues in the instant petition involve a determination and application of existing law
and prevailing jurisprudence. However, intertwined with these issues is the question of
the existence of the subject marriage license, which is a question of fact and one which
is not appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. This rule, nonetheless, is not without exceptions, viz.:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and
conjectures;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the
case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) When the findings arc contrary to those of the trial court;
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based;
(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
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.11 ChanRoblesVi rtua lawlib rary
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. Hence,
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:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
ART 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are
complied with:
Article 80(3) of the Civil Code also makes it clear that a marriage performed without
the corresponding marriage license is void, this being 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.16Stated 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 Cariño v. Yee Cariño.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 license.19 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 license ever issued in favor of Raquel
G. Kho [petitioner] and Veronica M. Borata [respondent] whose marriage was
celebrated on June 1, 1972."21 Thus, on the basis of such Certification, the presumed
validity of the marriage of petitioner and respondent has been overcome and it
becomes the burden of respondent to prove that their marriage is valid as it is she who
alleges such validity. As found by the RTC, respondent was not able to discharge that
burden.
It is telling that respondent failed to present their alleged marriage license or a copy
thereof to the court. In addition, the Certificate of Marriage22 issued by the officiating
priest does not contain any entry regarding the said marriage license. Respondent could
have obtained a copy of their marriage contract from the National Archives and Records
Section, where information regarding the marriage license, i.e., date of issuance and
license number, could be obtained. However, she also failed to do so. The Court also
notes, with approval, the RTC's agreement with petitioner's observation that the
statements of the witnesses for respondent, as well as respondent herself, all attest to
the fact that a marriage ceremony was conducted but neither one of them testified that
a marriage license was issued in favor of petitioner and respondent. Indeed, despite
respondent's categorical claim that she and petitioner were able to obtain a marriage
license, she failed to present evidence to prove such allegation. It is a settled rule that
one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not
evidence.23
Based on the Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern
Samar, coupled with respondent's failure to produce a copy of the alleged marriage
license or of any evidence to show that such license was ever issued, the only
conclusion that can be reached is that no valid marriage license was, in fact, issued.
Contrary to the ruling of the CA, it cannot be said that there was a simple defect, not a
total absence, in the requirements of the law which would not affect the validity of the
marriage. The fact remains that respondent failed to prove that the subject marriage
license was issued and the law is clear that a marriage which is performed without the
corresponding marriage license is null and void.
As to the sufficiency of petitioner's evidence, the OSG further argues that, on the basis
of this Court's ruling in Sevilla v. Cardenas,24 the certification issued by the local civil
registrar, which attests to the absence in 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, citing Section 28,26 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 Cariño v. Yee Cariño,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 Go-Bangayan v. Bangayan, Jr.28
Furthermore, in the fairly recent case of Abbas v. Abbas,29 this Court echoed the ruling
in Republic v. CA30 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 of Court
does not require a categorical statement to this effect. Moreover, in the said case, this
Court ruled that:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
Under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is a disputable presumption that an
official duty has been regularly performed, absent contradiction or other evidence to the
contrary. We held, "The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by
affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty." No such affirmative
evidence was shown that the Municipal Civil Registrar was lax in performing her duty of
checking the records of their office, thus the presumption must stand. x x x31 ChanRoblesVi rtua lawlib rary
In all the abovementioned cases, there was clear and unequivocal finding of the
absence of the subject marriage license which rendered the marriage void.
From these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered void on the ground of
absence of a marriage license, the law requires that the absence of such marriage
license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a
certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the
parties.32
Indeed, all the evidence cited by the CA to show that a wedding ceremony was
conducted and a marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure the absence of
a valid marriage license.33 As cited above, Article 80(3) of the Civil Code clearly
provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is void from the beginning,
except marriages of exceptional character under Articles 72 to 79 of the same Code. As
earlier stated, petitioner's and respondent's marriage cannot be characterized as among
the exceptions.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals, Cebu City, dated March 30, 2006 and January 14, 2009, respectively,
in CA-G.R. CV No. 69218, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, dated September 25, 2000,
in Civil Case No. 464 is REINSTATED.
Endnotes:
*Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Francis II. Jardeleza, per Raffle
dated May 23, 2016.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Amy C.
Lazaro-Javier and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; Annex "B" to Petition, id. at 41-43.
3
Annex "C" to Petition, id. at 44-59.
4Rollo,
pp. 60-61.
6Rollo, p. 64.
7Id. at 59.
8Id.
at 39.
9Id.
at 72.
10Id.
at 15.
11Geronimov. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105540, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 494, 498-
499. (Emphasis supplied)
12
The Family Code of the Philippines took effect on August 3, 1988.
13 Emphasis supplied.
14
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 of the peace or mayor with regard to the celebration of
marriage shall be performed by such consuls and vice-consuls.
15
Republic of the Phils. v. Dayot, 573 Phil. 553, 568-569 (2008).
16
Id. at 569.
17
Alcantara v. Alcantara, 558 Phil. 192, 202 (2007).
18
403 Phil. 861 (2001).
19
Id. at 869.
20
Id. at 870.
21
See RTC Decision, rollo, p. 56.
22Rollo,
p. 133.
23Amor-Catalan
v. Court of Appeals, 543 Phil. 568, 575 (2007).
24
529 Phil. 419, 429 (2006). cralawred
26
Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record. - A written statement signed by an officer having the
custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search, no record or
entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office
contain no such record or entry. cralawred
28
G.R. No. 201061, July 3, 2013.
31Abbas
v. Abbas, supra note 29, at 592.
32Alcantara
v. Alcantara, supra note 17, at 203-204.
33Abbas
v. Abbas, supra note 29, at 594.
Held:
Marriage is void. Art 58 and Art 80 (3) of the Civil Code explicitly
provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first issued
by the LCR (Art. 58). Marriage performed without the corresponding
marriage license is void (Art. 80 (3)). Court favors petitioner.