G.R. No. 11198 - Aitken vs. Julian La O

Case Summary (G.R. No. 11198)

Petitioner

Syed asserted annulment (declaration of nullity) of his marriage to Gloria on the ground that no marriage license was validly issued as required by the Family Code, thereby rendering the marriage void ab initio.

Respondent

Gloria maintained the validity of the January 9, 1993 marriage and relied on the marriage contract and testimony of witnesses and the solemnizing officer to prove that a marriage license had been secured and that the ceremony and other formal requisites were satisfied.

Key Dates and Places

Marriage ceremony: January 9, 1993, at the bride’s residence in Manila. A marriage contract indicated Marriage License No. 9969967, allegedly issued in Carmona, Cavite on January 8, 1993. Certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona was issued on July 11, 2003, denying issuance of a license to the couple under that number.

Applicable Law

The Family Code (Executive Order No. 209) governs the case. Relevant provisions: Article 3 (formal requisites of marriage), Article 4 (consequences of absence of essential or formal requisites), Article 35(3) (marriages solemnized without a license are void from the beginning), and Article 9 (place of issuance of marriage license). Procedural references include Section 28, Rule 132 and Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court as to certification and presumption of regularity of official acts.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Civil Case No. 03-0382-CFM in the RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City, seeking declaration of nullity. RTC rendered judgment annulling the marriage on October 5, 2005. The Court of Appeals reversed on March 11, 2008 and denied reconsideration. Petitioner filed this Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court.

Facts as Alleged by Petitioner

Syed testified he married Gloria in Taiwan in 1992, arrived in the Philippines in December 1992, and on January 9, 1993 underwent a ceremony at his mother-in-law’s house without knowing at the time it was a marriage. He denied applying for or residing in Carmona, Cavite, where the marriage license was purportedly issued. He obtained a certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona stating that Marriage License No. 9969967 belonged to another couple and that no license for Syed and Gloria appeared in Carmona records.

Evidence Presented by Petitioner

Petitioner submitted the July 11, 2003 certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona (signed by Leodivinia C. Encarnacion) indicating that serial number 9969967 was issued to different persons, and that no marriage license had been issued in the names of Syed and Gloria. He also presented testimony of an employee of the Carmona registrar’s office and a certified machine copy of Marriage License No. 9969967 showing different names.

Evidence Presented by Respondent

Respondent produced testimony of the solemnizing officer (Rev. Mario Dauz), one sponsor (Atty. Lorenzo Sanchez), the mother of the bride (Felicitas Goo), and a co-sponsor (Mary Ann Ceriola), and the marriage contract signed by the parties. Witnesses testified that a person (Qualin) procured the marriage license and that the license was shown to family members and later delivered to the solemnizing officer; the solemnizing officer also testified that he submitted the marriage contract and a copy of the license to the Local Civil Registrar of Manila.

RTC Findings and Ruling

The RTC found no valid marriage license issued to the couple in Carmona; the serial number belonged to another couple and neither party resided in Carmona in violation of Article 9. Because the marriage was not among those exempt from the license requirement, the RTC held the absence of a valid license was an absence of a formal requisite and declared the marriage void ab initio, ordering cancellation of the registry entries and termination of property relations.

Issues on Appeal to the Court of Appeals

The respondent appealed arguing: (1) the RTC erred in declaring the marriage void despite evidence of an issued license; (2) the trial court failed to consider that the parties appeared before a solemnizing officer and declared consent in presence of witnesses; and (3) the trial court failed to rule on estoppel by laches.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Rationale

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, finding credible testimonial and documentary evidence that a marriage license had been secured and that the ceremony and other formal requisites were complied with. The CA discounted the Carmona certification on the basis that it did not explicitly state a “diligent search” had been made and therefore, in the CA’s view, lacked probative value. The CA also relied on evidence of the parties’ comportment as husband and wife, offspring, and the late filing of petitioner’s nullity action following a bigamy information, to dismiss the petition.

Issues Presented in the Petition to the Supreme Court

Petitioner argued that the CA committed error in law in its reliance on precedent and in reversing the RTC without factual or legal basis. The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a valid marriage license had been issued for the couple such that the January 9, 1993 marriage could remain valid under the Family Code.

Supreme Court: Formal Requisites and Burden of Proof

The Supreme Court emphasized that under Article 3 of the Family Code the formal requisites include a valid marriage license, and Article 4 and Article 35(3) provide that the absence of a formal requisite (such as a license) renders the marriage void ab initio except for enumerated exceptions. The Court noted no exemption under Articles 27–34 applied here. Once the presumption of a valid marriage is rebutted by credible evidence showing the nonexistence of a license, the burden shifts to the party asserting validity to prove the license was in fact secured.

Supreme Court on the Probative Value of the Civil Registrar’s Certification

The Supreme Court gave probative value to the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, which stated that serial number 9969967 was issued to other persons and that no license in the names of the parties appears in Carmona records. The Court explained that Section 28, Rule 132 allows a custodian’s written statement that, after diligent search, no record is found; while the CA faulted the certification for not using the literal phrase “despite diligent search,” the Supreme Court held that the presumption that public officers regul

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 11198)

Facts of the Case

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Syed Azhar Abbas (Syed) challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated March 11, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV No. 86760 and the CA Resolution dated July 24, 2008 denying Syed's Motion for Reconsideration.
The case originated from Syed's petition for declaration of nullity of marriage to Gloria Goo Abbas (Gloria) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City, docketed as Civil Case No. 03-0382-CFM, raffled to RTC Branch 109.
Syed, a Pakistani citizen, alleged absence of a marriage license as provided in Article 4, Chapter I, Title 1 of Executive Order No. 269 (Family Code of the Philippines) as ground for annulment.
The marriage contract of Gloria and Syed stated Marriage License No. 9969967, issued at Carmona, Cavite on January 8, 1993, was presented to the solemnizing officer — a fact central to resolution of the case.
Syed testified he met Gloria in Taiwan in 1991 and that they were married on August 9, 1992 at the Taipei Mosque in Taiwan; he arrived in the Philippines in December 1992.
On January 9, 1993 Syed was at his mother-in-law's residence in Malate, Manila, where a ceremony occurred and he and Gloria signed a document; he claimed he did not know it was a marriage ceremony until later.
Syed testified he did not go to Carmona, Cavite to apply for a marriage license nor had he ever resided there.
In July 2003 Syed went to the Office of the Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite to check on their marriage license and was asked to show a copy of the marriage contract to identify the license number.

Certification by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite

Municipal Civil Registrar Leodivinia C. Encarnacion issued a certification dated July 11, 2003 stating that Marriage License No. 9969967 was issued in favor of Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan on January 19, 1993, and that no marriage license appears to have been issued to Syed and Gloria on January 8, 1993.
The certification text as quoted in the record:
"11 July 2003 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify as per Registry Records of Marriage License filed in this office, Marriage License No. 9969967 was issued in favor of MR. ARLINDO GETALADO and MISS MYRA MABILANGAN on January 19, 1993. No Marriage License appear [sic] to have been issued to MR. SYED AZHAR ABBAS and MISS GLORIA F. GOO on January 8, 1993. This certification is being issued to Mr. Syed Azhar Abbas for whatever legal purpose or intents it may serve."
A certified machine copy of Marriage License No. 9969967 (issued to Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan) was presented at trial; the names of Gloria and Syed do not appear in that document.

Testimony and Evidence Presented by Petitioner (Syed)

Syed testified to his Pakistani nationality, meeting Gloria in Taiwan, and earlier marriage in Taiwan on August 9, 1992.
Syed recounted being present at a January 9, 1993 ceremony at his mother-in-law's house, signing a document without understanding it was a marriage ceremony.
Syed testified he never applied for a marriage license in Carmona, Cavite nor resided there.
Syed admitted on cross-examination that Gloria had filed bigamy cases against him in 2001 and 2002, and that on counsel's advice he went to the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona to obtain certification on whether a marriage license existed.
Petitioner presented Norberto Bagsic, an employee of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, who appeared under a letter of authority and produced documents pertaining to Marriage License No. 9969967.
Bagsic testified that marriage license serial numbers are issued chronologically, that the office had not issued the same serial number to any other person, and that the certification dated July 11, 2003 was issued and signed by Leodivina Encarnacion certifying issuance of that license to Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan on January 19, 1993.

Testimony and Evidence Presented by Respondent (Gloria) and Her Witnesses

Gloria testified that Syed is her husband and presented the marriage contract bearing their signatures as proof.
Gloria and her mother sought assistance of Atty. Lorenzo Sanchez in securing the marriage license; a certain Qualin was said to have secured the license and delivered it to Atty. Sanchez.
Gloria testified she and Syed were married on January 9, 1993 at their residence and that they had a daughter born June 15, 1993.
Gloria admitted prior marriage in Taiwan on August 9, 1992 but said she did not know whether that marriage was celebrated under Muslim rites due to the celebrant and those present being Chinese.
Reverend Mario Dauz (Rev. Dauz), who is authorized to solemnize marriages, testified he solemnized the marriage of Syed and Gloria at the bride's residence on January 9, 1993; he said the witnesses were Atty. Lorenzo Sanchez and Mary Ann Ceriola, that he had been solemnizing marriages since 1982, and that Atty. Sanchez gave him the marriage license the day before the wedding.
Rev. Dauz testified the marriage contract was prepared by his secretary and that after solemnization it was registered with the Local Civil Registrar of Manila; he submitted the marriage contract and a copy of the marriage license with that office.
Atty. Lorenzo Sanchez testified he was asked to be sponsor by Felicitas Goo, that he requested a Qualin to secure the marriage license, that Qualin gave him the license on January 8, 1993 but he did not know where the license was obtained, and that he witnessed and signed the marriage contract as sponsor.
Felicitas Goo (mother) testified she was present at the January 9, 1993 wedding at her house, that she sought Atty. Sanchez's help at Manila City Hall to secure a license, that a male person brought the application and later returned showing the marriage license before giving it to Atty. Sanchez, and that she did not read all the contents of the license but was told it was obtained from Carmona.
Mary Ann Ceriola's testimony was stipulated by counsel for both parties: she was one of the sponsors, was seen in wedding photos, could identify persons in the photos, and her testimony corroborated Felicitas and Atty. Sanchez.

Procedural History and Pleadings

RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City: Civil Case No. 03-0382-CFM — Petitioner Syed sought declaration of nullity of marriage; trial court rendered Decision on October 5, 2005, declaring the January 9, 1993 marriage void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license and ordered cancellation of registration; community of property terminated.
Gloria filed Motion for Reconsideration dated November 7, 2005; RTC denied the motion.
Gloria appealed to the Court of Appeals; CA rendered Decision dated March 11, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV No. 86760 reversing the RTC and dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity, holding the marriage valid and subsisting.
Syed filed Motion for Reconsideration with the CA dated April 1, 2008; CA denied the motion in a Resolution dated July 24, 2008.
Syed filed petition for review with the Supreme