Case Digest (G.R. No. 167746)
Facts:
In Restituto M. Alcantara vs. Rosita A. Alcantara (G.R. No. 167746, August 28, 2007), petitioner Restituto M. Alcantara sought annulment of his marriage to respondent Rosita A. Alcantara before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 143 (Civil Case No. 97-1325). He alleged that on December 8, 1982, without securing a marriage license, he and respondent engaged a “fixer” at Manila City Hall who arranged their civil wedding before Rev. Aquilino Navarro of the CDCC BR Chapel, using a purported license number 7054033. They repeated the ceremony on March 26, 1983 at San Jose de Manuguit Church, likewise without a valid license produced. The parties bore two children—Rose Ann (b. 1985) and Rachel Ann (b. 1992)—and separated in 1988. Petitioner prayed to have the marriage declared void ab initio and the marriage records canceled. Respondent controverted, presenting a certification from the Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, that Marriage License No. 7054133 was duly issCase Digest (G.R. No. 167746)
Facts:
- Marriage ceremonies and alleged absence of license
- On December 8, 1982, petitioner and respondent, without securing a marriage license, went to Manila City Hall and, through a “fixer,” were married by Rev. Aquilino Navarro of the CDCC BR Chapel.
- On March 26, 1983, they underwent a second ceremony at San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, again without a license; the contract bore a purported Carmona, Cavite license number, alleged sham.
- Respondent gave birth to Rose Ann Alcantara on October 14, 1985, and to Rachel Ann Alcantara on October 27, 1992. The parties separated in 1988.
- Petition for annulment and trial court proceedings
- In 1997, petitioner filed for annulment alleging voidness ab initio due to absence of a valid marriage license; he prayed for cancellation of the contract and its registration.
- Respondent answered, asserting a valid license evidenced by certification from the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite; she opposed annulment and noted petitioner’s concubinage.
- On February 14, 2000, RTC Makati Branch 143 dismissed the petition for lack of merit, ordered petitioner to pay ₱20,000 monthly support for two children, and taxed costs.
- Court of Appeals and Supreme Court petitions
- On September 30, 2004, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC, holding the marriage license was presumed regularly issued and the contract prima facie proof (Rule 130 § 44).
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on April 6, 2005.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising errors in CA’s factual and legal findings.
Issues:
- Whether the CA erred in ruling the annulment petition lacked basis despite evidence of no license at the time of solemnization.
- Whether the CA erred in relying on Marriage License No. 7054133, which was not identified or offered during trial and differed from the contract number.
- Whether the CA failed to apply Sy v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000).
- Whether the CA should have relaxed procedural rules to protect substantial rights of litigants.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)