The Supreme Court denied a petition for annulment of marriage. While the petitioner claimed there was no marriage license at the time of the ceremony, the marriage contract and a certification from the local civil registrar reflected that a license was issued. The Court upheld the presumption of validity of marriages and affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the petition for lack of merit.
The Supreme Court denied a petition for annulment of marriage. While the petitioner claimed there was no marriage license at the time of the ceremony, the marriage contract and a certification from the local civil registrar reflected that a license was issued. The Court upheld the presumption of validity of marriages and affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the petition for lack of merit.
The Supreme Court denied a petition for annulment of marriage. While the petitioner claimed there was no marriage license at the time of the ceremony, the marriage contract and a certification from the local civil registrar reflected that a license was issued. The Court upheld the presumption of validity of marriages and affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the petition for lack of merit.
Doctrine: Marriage License; Article 35 of the Family Code enumerates
the instances where marriages are void from the beginning, to wit: (3.) Those solemnized without license; A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58 of the same Code. b. Case Title: Restituto Alcantara vs. Rosita Alcantara, GR. No. 167746, (J. Chico-Nazario) (August 28, 2007) c. Facts: 1. A petition for annulment of marriage was filed by petitioner against respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging that on 8 December 1982 he and respondent, without securing the required marriage license. 2. They got married on 8 December 1982. Petitioner and respondent went through another marriage ceremony at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. 3. In 1988, Petitioner prayed that after due hearing, judgment be issued declaring their marriage void and ordering the Civil Registrar to cancel the corresponding marriage contract and its entry on file. 4. Respondent asserts the validity of their marriage and maintains that there was a marriage license issued. Petitioner has a mistress with whom he has three children. Petitioner only filed the annulment of their marriage to evade prosecution for concubinage. Respondent, in fact, has filed a case for concubinage against petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 60. Respondent prays that the petition for annulment of marriage be denied for lack of merit. 5. On 14 February 2000, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143, rendered its Decision dismissing the Petition for lack of merit. 6. The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing the petitioner's appeal. His Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied in a resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 6 April 2005. d. Issue/s: The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it ruled that the Petition for Annulment has no legal and factual basis despite the evidence on record that there was no marriage license at the precise moment of the solemnization of the marriage. e. Held: The Court held that Petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license to impugn the validity of his marriage. In this case, the marriage contract between the petitioner and respondent reflects a marriage license number. A certification to this effect was also issued by the local civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite. The presumption is always in favor of the validity of the marriage. Every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage bonds. The Courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight.
Wherefore, premises considered, the instant Petition is Denied for lack
of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 September 2004 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 143 of Makati City, dated 14 February 2000, are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.