Republic of the Philippines Civil Registrar to cancel the corresponding marriage contract5 and its entry

SUPREME COURT on file.6

Manila
Answering petitioner’s petition for annulment of marriage, respondent
THIRD DIVISION asserts the validity of their marriage and maintains that there was a
marriage license issued as evidenced by a certification from the Office of
G.R. No. 167746 August 28, 2007 the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite. Contrary to petitioner’s
representation, respondent gave birth to their first child named Rose Ann
RESTITUTO M. ALCANTARA, Petitioner, Alcantara on 14 October 1985 and to another daughter named Rachel Ann
vs. Alcantara on 27 October 1992.7 Petitioner has a mistress with whom he
ROSITA A. ALCANTARA and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, has three children.8 Petitioner only filed the annulment of their marriage to
Respondents. evade prosecution for concubinage.9 Respondent, in fact, has filed a case
for concubinage against petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City, Branch 60.10 Respondent prays that the petition for
DECISION
annulment of marriage be denied for lack of merit.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
On 14 February 2000, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143, rendered its
Decision disposing as follows:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner
Restituto Alcantara assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated
The foregoing considered, judgment is rendered as follows:
30 September 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 66724 denying petitioner’s appeal
and affirming the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City,
Branch 143, in Civil Case No. 97-1325 dated 14 February 2000, dismissing 1. The Petition is dismissed for lack of merit;
his petition for annulment of marriage.
2. Petitioner is ordered to pay respondent the sum of twenty
The antecedent facts are: thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) per month as support for their two
(2) children on the first five (5) days of each month; and
A petition for annulment of marriage3 was filed by petitioner against
respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging that on 8 December 1982 he and 3. To pay the costs.11
respondent, without securing the required marriage license, went to the
Manila City Hall for the purpose of looking for a person who could arrange As earlier stated, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing
a marriage for them. They met a person who, for a fee, arranged their the petitioner’s appeal. His Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied
wedding before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel in a resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 6 April 2005.12
of the CDCC BR Chapel.4 They got married on the same day, 8 December
1982. Petitioner and respondent went through another marriage ceremony The Court of Appeals held that the marriage license of the parties is
at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. presumed to be regularly issued and petitioner had not presented any
The marriage was likewise celebrated without the parties securing a evidence to overcome the presumption. Moreover, the parties’ marriage
marriage license. The alleged marriage license, procured in Carmona, contract being a public document is a prima facie proof of the questioned
Cavite, appearing on the marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party was marriage under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.13
a resident of Carmona, and they never went to Carmona to apply for a
license with the local civil registrar of the said place. On 14 October 1985, In his Petition before this Court, petitioner raises the following issues for
respondent gave birth to their child Rose Ann Alcantara. In 1988, they resolution:
parted ways and lived separate lives. Petitioner prayed that after due
hearing, judgment be issued declaring their marriage void and ordering the
 a. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the
when it ruled that the Petition for Annulment has no legal and Civil Code, the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio
factual basis despite the evidence on record that there was no pursuant to Article 80(3)18 in relation to Article 58 of the same Code.19
marriage license at the precise moment of the solemnization of
the marriage. Article 53 of the Civil Code20 which was the law applicable at the time of
the marriage of the parties states:
b. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error
when it gave weight to the Marriage License No. 7054133 despite Art. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are
the fact that the same was not identified and offered as evidence complied with:
during the trial, and was not the Marriage license number
appearing on the face of the marriage contract. (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties;

c. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error (2) Their consent, freely given;
when it failed to apply the ruling laid down by this Honorable
Court in the case of Sy vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 127263,
(3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and
12 April 2000 [330 SCRA 550]).
(4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional
d. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error
character.
when it failed to relax the observance of procedural rules to
protect and promote the substantial rights of the party litigants.14
The requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the State’s
demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the
We deny the petition.
maintenance of which the general public is interested.21
Petitioner submits that at the precise time that his marriage with the
Petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license to impugn the
respondent was celebrated, there was no marriage license because he
validity of his marriage. The cases where the court considered the absence
and respondent just went to the Manila City Hall and dealt with a "fixer"
of a marriage license as a ground for considering the marriage void are
who arranged everything for them.15 The wedding took place at the stairs
clear-cut.
in Manila City Hall and not in CDCC BR Chapel where Rev. Aquilino
Navarro who solemnized the marriage belongs.16 He and respondent did
not go to Carmona, Cavite, to apply for a marriage license. Assuming a In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,22 the Local Civil
marriage license from Carmona, Cavite, was issued to them, neither he Registrar issued a certification of due search and inability to find a record
nor the respondent was a resident of the place. The certification of the or entry to the effect that Marriage License No. 3196182 was issued to the
Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, cannot be given weight parties. The Court held that the certification of "due search and inability to
because the certification states that "Marriage License number 7054133 find" a record or entry as to the purported marriage license, issued by the
was issued in favor of Mr. Restituto Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario"17 Civil Registrar of Pasig, enjoys probative value, he being the officer
but their marriage contract bears the number 7054033 for their marriage charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance
license number. 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.
The marriage involved herein having been solemnized on 8 December
1982, or prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law to
determine its validity is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the In Cariño v. Cariño,23 the Court considered the marriage of therein
time of its celebration. petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased Santiago S. Carino as void ab
initio. 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 of San Juan, Metro Manila, their office has no record of such by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless
marriage license. The court held that the certification issued by the local the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable
civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the marriage intendment will be made in support of the presumption and, in case of
license. Their marriage having been solemnized without the necessary doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be
marriage license and not being one of the marriages exempt from the in favor of its lawfulness.28 Significantly, apart from these, petitioner, by
marriage license requirement, the marriage of the petitioner and the counsel, admitted that a marriage license was, indeed, issued in Carmona,
deceased is undoubtedly void ab initio. Cavite.29

In Sy v. Court of Appeals,24 the marriage license was issued on 17 Petitioner, in a faint attempt to demolish the probative value of the marriage
September 1974, almost one year after the ceremony took place on 15 license, claims that neither he nor respondent is a resident of Carmona,
November 1973. The Court held that the ineluctable conclusion is that the Cavite. Even then, we still hold that there is no sufficient basis to annul
marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license. petitioner and respondent’s marriage. Issuance of a marriage license in a
city or municipality, not the residence of either of the contracting parties,
In all these cases, there was clearly an absence of a marriage license and issuance of a marriage license despite the absence of publication or
which rendered the marriage void. prior to the completion of the 10-day period for publication are considered
mere irregularities that do not affect the validity of the marriage.30 An
Clearly, from these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered void on irregularity in any of the formal requisites of marriage does not affect its
the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires that the validity but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity are civilly,
absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage criminally and administratively liable.31
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. In this Again, petitioner harps on the discrepancy between the marriage license
case, the marriage contract between the petitioner and respondent reflects number in the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar, which states that
a marriage license number. A certification to this effect was also issued by the marriage license issued to the parties is No. 7054133, while the
the local civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite.25 The certification moreover is marriage contract states that the marriage license number of the parties is
precise in that it specifically identified the parties to whom the marriage number 7054033. Once more, this argument fails to sway us. It is not
license was issued, namely Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Almario, further impossible to assume that the same is a mere a typographical error, as a
validating the fact that a license was in fact issued to the parties herein. closer scrutiny of the marriage contract reveals the overlapping of the
numbers 0 and 1, such that the marriage license may read either as
The certification of Municipal Civil Registrar Macrino L. Diaz of Carmona, 7054133 or 7054033. It therefore does not detract from our conclusion
Cavite, reads: regarding the existence and issuance of said marriage license to the
parties.
This is to certify that as per the registry Records of Marriage filed in this
office, Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. Restituto Under the principle that he who comes to court must come with clean
Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario on December 8, 1982. hands,32 petitioner cannot pretend that he was not responsible or a party
to the marriage celebration which he now insists took place without the
requisite marriage license. Petitioner admitted that the civil marriage took
This Certification is being issued upon the request of Mrs. Rosita A.
place because he "initiated it."33 Petitioner is an educated person. He is a
Alcantara for whatever legal purpose or intents it may serve.26
mechanical engineer by profession. He knowingly and voluntarily went to
the Manila City Hall and likewise, knowingly and voluntarily, went through
This certification enjoys the presumption that official duty has been a marriage ceremony. He cannot benefit from his action and be allowed to
regularly performed and the issuance of the marriage license was done in extricate himself from the marriage bond at his mere say-so when the
the regular conduct of official business.27 The presumption of regularity of situation is no longer palatable to his taste or suited to his lifestyle. We
official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure cannot countenance such effrontery. His attempt to make a mockery of the
to perform a duty. However, the presumption prevails until it is overcome institution of marriage betrays his bad faith.34
Petitioner and respondent went through a marriage ceremony twice in a Yes your honor.
span of less than one year utilizing the same marriage license. There is no
claim that he went through the second wedding ceremony in church under COURT
duress or with a gun to his head. Everything was executed without nary a
whimper on the part of the petitioner.
lavvphi1

That is why the San Jose de Manuguit church copied the same marriage
License in the Marriage Contract issued which Marriage License is Number
In fact, for the second wedding of petitioner and respondent, they 7054033.
presented to the San Jose de Manuguit Church the marriage contract
executed during the previous wedding ceremony before the Manila City WITNESS
Hall. This is confirmed in petitioner’s testimony as follows—
Yes your honor.35
WITNESS
The logical conclusion is that petitioner was amenable and a willing
As I remember your honor, they asked us to get the necessary document participant to all that took place at that time. Obviously, the church
prior to the wedding. ceremony was confirmatory of their civil marriage, thereby cleansing
whatever irregularity or defect attended the civil wedding.36
COURT
Likewise, the issue raised by petitioner -- that they appeared before a
What particular document did the church asked you to produce? I am "fixer" who arranged everything for them and who facilitated the ceremony
referring to the San Jose de Manuguit church. before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the
CDCC Br Chapel -- will not strengthen his posture. The authority of the
WITNESS officer or clergyman shown to have performed a marriage ceremony will
be presumed in the absence of any showing to the contrary.37 Moreover,
I don’t remember your honor. the solemnizing officer is not duty-bound to investigate whether or not a
marriage license has been duly and regularly issued by the local civil
COURT registrar. All the solemnizing officer needs to know is that the license has
been issued by the competent official, and it may be presumed from the
issuance of the license that said official has fulfilled the duty to ascertain
Were you asked by the church to present a Marriage License?
whether the contracting parties had fulfilled the requirements of law.38
WITNESS
Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. The presumption is always in favor
of the validity of the marriage.39 Every intendment of the law or fact leans
I think they asked us for documents and I said we have already a Marriage toward the validity of the marriage bonds. The Courts look upon this
Contract and I don’t know if it is good enough for the marriage and they presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the contrary,
accepted it your honor. the presumption is of great weight.

COURT Wherefore, premises considered, the instant Petition is Denied for lack of
merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 September 2004
In other words, you represented to the San Jose de Manuguit church that affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 143 of Makati
you have with you already a Marriage Contract? City, dated 14 February 2000, are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

WITNESS SO ORDERED.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA- ANTONIO EDUARDO B.

MARTINEZ NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice