Kho Vs Republic
Kho Vs Republic
Subject / Syllabus Topic: VI. (D) (5) Formal Requisites (a) Marriage License (5) Duties of the Civil Registrar
Petitioner: Raquel G. Kho Respondent: Republic of the Philippines and Veronica
Doctrine: Article 58 of the Civil Code
Recit Summary: 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. The case at hand shows that no such marriage
license was acquired, which was further proved by a certificate issued from the Municipal Civil Registrar, attesting
that the Local Civil Registrar did not have a record nor a copy of a marriage license.
Facts:
(Please refer to 10. Kho vs. Republic)
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, but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated January 14, 2009.
Hence the petition for certiorari with regards to the decision of the CA.
Issue/s: Ruling:
W/N a marriage license was truly obtained? Petition granted and the CA’s Decision and Ruling
reversed and set aside.
Holding:
NO. ART. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with:
(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 character.
- 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.
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;
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;
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.
Among the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner is a Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche,
Eastern Samar which attested to the fact that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar has neither record nor copy of a
marriage license issued to petitioner and respondent with respect to their marriage celebrated on June 1, 1972.