G.R. No. 187462 - Kho vs. Republic

On November 17, 1999, Raquel G. Kho (“petitioner”) filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Oras, Eastern Samar, for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Veronica B. Kho (“respondent”), solemnized on June 1, 1972 at around 3:00 a.m. in Arteche, Eastern Samar.
Petitioner alleged:

His parents instructed a municipal treasurer’s clerk to prepare “whatever necessary papers” the afternoon of May 31, 1972 for a midnight wedding to exclude the public.
No marriage license was ever applied for, signed or even seen by petitioner.
Given the short period between requisition of papers and ceremony, no valid license could have been issued.
A certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche attested that no record or copy of a marriage license for the parties existed in its archives.

Respondent denied lack of license, claiming both parties personally obtained and presented a valid license before the solemnizing officer.
Venue was transferred to Branch 2, RTC of Borongan. Parties submitted affidavits and documentary evidence.
On September 25, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment declaring the marriage null and void ab initio for absence of a valid marriage license, citing Civil Code Articles 53(4), 58 and 80(3).

Respondent appealed to the CA, Cebu City (CA-G.R. CV No. 69218).
On March 30, 2006, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision, declaring the marriage valid and subsisting. It held:

The solemnization of marriage gives rise to the presumption that a license was properly issued.
Absence of entry of license in the marriage certificate is a mere formal defect, not affecting validity.

Petitioner elevated the case via Rule 45, challenging the CA’s reliance on ethical considerations and presumptions over his documentary evidence.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) raised a procedural objection that factual findings on existence of a license are not reviewable under certiorari, which the Supreme Court rejected given conflicting fact-findings between RTC and CA.

Did the CA err in attributing an “ethical dimension” or petitioner’s alleged liaison as a factor in reversing the nullity ruling?
Did the CA err in weighing petitioner’s 25-year delay in challenging his purportedly void marriage against him?
Did the CA err in disregarding petitioner’s documentary evidence of no marriage license and giving weight instead to presumption of validity?
Did the CA err in setting aside the RTC’s declaration of nullity for absence of the requisite marriage license?