Case Summary (G.R. No. 247576)
Key Individuals and Context
- Petitioner: Rosario D. Ado-an‑Morimoto (Rosario).
- Respondent: Yoshio Morimoto (Yoshio).
- Places: Manila City Hall (where blank marriage certificate was signed); Civil Registry of San Juan City and Philippine Statistics Authority/Office of the Civil Registrar (issued certifications regarding marriage and marriage license).
- Context: Petition for review under Rule 45 seeking declaration that a registered marriage (allegedly solemnized on December 5, 2007) is null and void ab initio on grounds of simulation and lack of essential and formal requisites.
Petitioner and Respondent Allegations
- Rosario alleges she agreed to simulate a marriage with Yoshio to facilitate obtaining a Japanese visa; they signed a blank marriage certificate on December 5, 2007 at Manila City Hall and there was no actual marriage ceremony or genuine intent to marry.
- Rosario later discovered a Certificate of Marriage registered in San Juan, indicating a marriage on December 5, 2007 allegedly solemnized by a Reverend and predicated on Marriage License No. 6120159.
Key Dates and Procedural History
- December 5, 2007: Blank marriage certificate signed, per petitioner’s account.
- October 5, 2009: Rosario filed Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in Quezon City RTC.
- September 21, 2011: Assistant City Prosecutor reported no collusion between the parties to obtain favorable judicial relief.
- January 7, 2016: Regional Trial Court denied the petition.
- October 10, 2018: Court of Appeals denied Rosario’s appeal.
- April 25, 2019: CA denied motion for reconsideration.
- March 15, 2021: Supreme Court decision reversing CA and RTC, declaring the registered marriage null and void ab initio. (Decision applied under the 1987 Constitution.)
Applicable Law
- Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered 2021).
- Primary statutory authority: Family Code of the Philippines (Arts. 1–4, 27–34, 35(2), 45) governing essential and formal requisites of marriage and consequences of their absence.
- Rules of evidence and procedure referenced: Rule 132, Sections 28–29 (proof of lack of record) and Rule 131, Section 3(m) (presumption that official duty has been regularly performed).
- Relevant jurisprudence cited: People v. Santiago; Go‑Bangayan v. Bangayan, Jr.; Quinsay v. Avellaneda; Pomperada v. Jochico; Republic v. Court of Appeals and Castro; Sevilla v. Cardenas; Kho v. Republic; CariAo v. Yee CariAo; BP Oil v. Total Distribution (on admissions against interest).
Material Facts and Evidence
- Petitioner’s sworn account: no ceremony, no intent to marry, signing of blank certificate given assurance it would not be registered.
- Documents presented by petitioner: (1) the Certificate of Marriage showing the alleged marriage; (2) June 17, 2008 Certification by the Office of the Civil Registrar/National Statistics Office stating the office mistakenly certified a marriage between the parties; (3) June 4, 2009 Certificate from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan stating no record of Marriage License No. 6120159.
- Testimony: Mary Ann C. Chico, Registration Officer III of San Juan City, authenticated the June 4, 2009 certification.
- Assistant City Prosecutor’s Report: concluded there was no collusion between petitioner and respondent to obtain a favorable court ruling.
Legal Issue Presented
- Whether the registered marriage between Rosario and Yoshio should be declared null and void ab initio on grounds that it was simulated and lacked essential and/or formal requisites (in particular, genuine consent and a marriage license).
Legal Standards on Consent, Formal Requisites, and Simulation
- Essential requisites: legal capacity and consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer (Family Code arts. 2–3). Consent is indispensable; absence of bona fide intent to become spouses renders a marriage void for lack of consent even if outward ceremonies are performed.
- Formal requisites: authority of the solemnizing officer, valid marriage license, and appearance/ personal declaration before the solemnizing officer and witnesses (Family Code art. 3). Absence of any essential or formal requisite generally renders marriage void ab initio (Family Code art. 4), subject to narrow exceptions (art. 35(2)).
Admissions Against Interest and Their Evidentiary Weight
- The petitioner’s own admissions that the purported marriage was simulated and that she signed a blank certificate are treated as admissions against interest, which enjoy high probative value. The Court applied established jurisprudence that admissions against one’s interest are persuasive because no one would declare against their interest unless true (citing BP Oil).
- The Court considered similar precedents (Go‑Bangayan, Quinsay, Pomperada, People v. Santiago) where simulation, falsification, or lack of genuine consent resulted in the declaration that marriages were null and in some instances criminal or administrative sanctions followed.
Probative Value of Civil Registrar Certifications Regarding Absence of Marriage License
- Absence of a marriage license is a separate and independent ground for voidness. The Court relied on the June 4, 2009 certification of the San Juan Local Civil Registrar stating no record of Marriage License No. 6120159, corroborated by testimony of the San Juan Registration Officer.
- The Court revisited precedents on the sufficiency of civil registrar certifications. It explained Republic v. Court of Appeals and Castro gives probative value to a certification of “due search and inability to find” under Rule 132. While Sevilla attempted a stricter requirement (an unequivocal statement of diligent search), the Court clarified that subsequent jurisprudence (including Kho) relaxed Sevilla’s rigidity and recognized the disputable presumption under Rule 131(3)(m) that official duties were regularly performed; absent affirmative evidence to the contrary, a custodian’s certification that a record does not exist or could not be found carries probative force.
Application of Law to the Present Case
- Lack of genuine consent: Petitioner’s credible admission that the marriage was simulated, the absence of any actual ceremony, and surrounding circumstances establish absence of bona fide intention to marry, satisfying the standard for voidness for lack of consent. The Assistant City Prosecutor’s report (no collusion) strengthens petitioner’s credibility and diminishes arguments she sought a favorable judicial outcome through collusion.
- Absence of marria
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 247576)
Case Caption, Decision and Panel
- G.R. No. 247576, decided March 15, 2021 by the Supreme Court, Third Division.
- Decision authored by Justice Leonen.
- Case styled: Rosario D. Ado-an-Morimoto, Petitioner, vs. Yoshio Morimoto and the Republic of the Philippines, Respondents.
- The Court resolved a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking reversal and setting aside of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision (October 10, 2018) and Resolution (April 25, 2019).
- The Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals October 10, 2018 Decision and April 25, 2019 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 108043, and declared the marriage between petitioner Rosario D. Ado-an-Morimoto and respondent Yoshio Morimoto, registered as having taken place on December 5, 2007, NULL and VOID AB INITIO.
- Justices Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and J. Lopez concurred.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on October 5, 2009 before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. Q-09-65737).
- On January 7, 2016, the Regional Trial Court (Judge Jose L. Bautista, Jr., Branch 107) issued a Decision denying petitioner’s petition. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. On October 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals (Special Ninth Division; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Gabriel T. Robeniol) denied the appeal.
- On April 25, 2019 the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court (Rollo, pp. 3–10). The Supreme Court granted relief, reversing the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court.
Facts as Presented by Petitioner and in the Record
- Sometime before December 2007, a friend introduced petitioner Rosario to respondent Yoshio Morimoto as a person with whom she could simulate marriage to facilitate her acquisition of a Japanese visa; petitioner acceded to the proposal (Rollo, p. 28).
- On December 5, 2007, petitioner and respondent met at Manila City Hall and signed a blank marriage certificate; the solemnizing officer allegedly assured them the certificate would never be registered or recorded in the Civil Registry (Rollo, pp. 17, 28).
- Petitioner last saw respondent on that date; no genuine conjugal relations or cohabitation followed (petitioner’s account).
- Later, petitioner sought a Certificate of No Marriage from the Philippine Statistics Authority and discovered, to her surprise, a Certificate of Marriage in the City of San Juan indicating she married Yoshio on December 5, 2007, in a ceremony officiated by a certain Reverend Roberto Espiritu and predicated on Marriage License No. 6120159, issued by the Office of the Civil Registry of San Juan (Rollo).
- Petitioner maintained the marriage attested to by the discovered marriage certificate never actually happened and that it was not backed by a marriage license.
Evidence Adduced at Trial
- Petitioner introduced as documentary evidence:
- The Certificate of Marriage purporting to attest to petitioner’s marriage to Yoshio (date and officiant as above).
- A June 17, 2008 Certification issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar, National Statistics Office, stating that the office mistakenly certified that a marriage was solemnized between petitioner and respondent Yoshio.
- A June 4, 2009 Certificate issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar, San Juan City, stating that “no record of Marriage License No. 6120159 was issued [the parties].”
- Testimonial evidence included Mary Ann C. Chico, Registration Officer III of the Office of the Civil Registrar, San Juan City, who authenticated the June 4, 2009 Certificate (Rollo, p. 19).
- An Assistant City Prosecutor’s Report dated September 21, 2011 stated that there was no collusion between petitioner and respondent Yoshio to obtain a favorable ruling from the Regional Trial Court (Rollo, p. 18).
Issue Presented
- Whether the registered marriage between petitioner Rosario D. Ado-an-Morimoto and respondent Yoshio Morimoto should be declared null and void.
Applicable Legal Provisions and Procedural Rules Cited
- Family Code, Article 1: Marriage as a special contract; foundation of the family.
- Family Code, Article 2: Essential requisites of marriage — legal capacity (male and female) and consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
- Family Code, Article 3: Formal requisites — authority of the solemnizing officer; a valid marriage license except in enumerated exceptions; a marriage ceremony with personal declaration before the solemnizing officer in the presence of at least two witnesses of legal age.
- Family Code, Article 4: Absence of any essential or formal requisite renders the marriage void ab initio (except Article 35(2) limited exception); defect in essential requisite renders marriage voidable; irregularity in formal requisites does not affect validity but may incur liability.
- Family Code, Article 35(2) referenced as the exception for marriages solemnized by unauthorized persons when the parties believed in good faith in the officer’s authority.
- Family Code, Articles 27–34: enumerate situations exempting marriage license requirement (e.g., in articulo mortis, remote residence, Muslim or ethnic cultural marriages, cohabitation for five years).
- Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: procedural basis for Petition for Review on Certiorari.
- Rule 132, Section 28/29 (Rules of Court): proof of lack of record; admissibility and probative value of a certification by the custodian of an official record stating that after diligent search no such record exists.
- Rule 131, Section 3(m) (Rules of Court): disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.